Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Does global warming cause extreme weather?
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Leroy N. Soetoro
Apr 29, 2012, 4:26:58 PM4/29/12
to
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/does_global_warming_cause_extreme_w
eather.html
Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory supporters are in the midst of a
big propaganda campaign leading to a global "Connect the Dots" day on May
5. Their goal is to convince the public that recent extreme weather
events are due to global warming and that global warming is man-made.
They are preparing public opinion for the huge economic sacrifice involved
in curbing carbon dioxide emissions, a process which they will demand at
the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development from June 20
through 22.
So far, their propaganda campaign has been succeeding. In fact, the New
York Times reported on April 17 ("In Poll, Many Link Weather Extremes to
Climate Change") that the public now believes stuff that the scientists
who adhere to AGW theory don't even claim to be true:
Scientists may hesitate to link some of the weather extremes of recent
years to global warming -- but the public, it seems, is already there.
A poll due for release on Wednesday shows that a large majority of
Americans believe that this year's unusually warm winter, last year's
blistering summer and some other weather disasters were probably made
worse by global warming. And by a 2-to-1 margin, the public says the
weather has been getting worse, rather than better, in recent years.
The survey, the most detailed to date on the public response to weather
extremes, comes atop other polling showing a recent uptick in concern
about climate change. Read together, the polls suggest that direct
experience of erratic weather may be convincing some people that the
problem is no longer just a vague and distant threat.
Meanwhile, the mainstream media has been largely hiding from the public
the actual cause of recent extreme weather events -- big amplitude swings
in the jet stream. In an April 2 YouTube video (click here to see it),
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPNT0t1_bW0
British astrophysicist Piers Corbyn explains why severe weather occurs
regularly every 60 years, plus or minus 5 years:
Technically, they say, "Well, the big extremes are caused by changes in
the track of low pressure systems as they go around the globe, and when
there's big amplitude swings in this track, then you do get more extreme
events." However, they don't know where these big amplitude swings come
from.
However, we do understand the origin of these big amplitude swings in the
jet stream, and these are caused by a mingling of solar-magnetic factors
and lunar factors which is why the basic signal is the 60 year signal
we've mentioned.
And for the last three years we have been in the middle of one of these
peaks of big swings in the jet stream, and we are going to carry on like
this for at least another year or so. And right now we are in, perhaps,
the most exciting phase of this 60 year cycle.
Corbyn is a brilliant astrophysicist. He looks for repetitions of
historic solar-magnetic factors (such as sunspots) and bases his long-
range weather forecasts on what those patterns, when combined with moon
factors, caused in the past. His long-range predictions have been correct
about 85% of the time. He makes his money, mostly from British insurance
companies and farmers, by successfully predicting extreme weather events.
We are fortunate that he is starting to make long-term predictions about
U.S. weather. In the same YouTube video, he notes that he correctly
predicted March's extreme weather in the U.S.:
The thirteenth to fifteenth of March, we specifically predicted this in
our forecast in detail, we said there would be tornadoes and giant hail in
the lower Midwest. That happened.
We also said, after that there would be a big heat wave in the central and
eastern parts of the USA. That happened.
And then we said that would turn into or change into something more
focused on Texas with intense heat in Texas. That happened.
And then, finally, there was a cold blast just coming down from Canada in
the Northeast part of America at the end of March carrying into April
which we predicted.
The theory that climate change, both global warming and cooling, is
related to magnetic disturbances on the sun and cloud-creating cosmic rays
is supported by a large number of scientists who have published their
findings in refereed journals (click here to watch a review).
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073
This theory has succeeded in explaining climate changes whether the scale
is years or hundreds of millions of years. For example, it explains the
colder climate from 2006-2010 as partly the result of reduced solar
activity and the recent warmer climate as partly the result of solar
activity rising throughout 2011.
Its adherents don't deny that global temperatures may be influenced by
greenhouse gas concentrations, but they hold that the influence of
greenhouse gases on the weather is probably small. Once the contributions
of solar and cosmic rays to climate are precisely determined, it will be
possible to determine what is left to be explained by other influences.
In contrast, the AGW theorists can't explain why earth temperatures
stopped rising in 1998, despite the continuing rise in carbon dioxide
concentrations. They are vicious toward those who oppose them, calling
them "deniers" and unscientific. One could argue that it is they who are
the deniers. It is scandalous that none of those involved in the East
Anglia revelations of attempts to suppress publication of contrary
findings has been punished by the universities employing them.
In short, there are two competing theories. The solar/cosmic ray theory
successfully predicts weather and climate. The man-made global warming
theory correctly predicts opinion polls.
President Obama is staking his re-election campaign upon the opinion
polls. His administration is suppressing fossil fuel production and
development. On March 27, Obama's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
limited carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants to 1,000 pounds per
megawatt-hour. This rule prevents the building of the lowest-cost
producers of electricity: coal-fired power plants. It will raise the
price of electricity for American households and businesses.
Then, on March 29, Obama moved to reduce domestic drilling for oil by
calling on Congress to end $4 billion in "taxpayer giveaways" to the oil
industry and instead to double down on investments in clean energy
industries "that have never been more promising."
Dr. Bernard Weinstein, associate director of the Maguire Energy Institute
at Southern Methodist University, in an op-ed in the New York Post, stated
that oil companies enjoy no benefits not available to other businesses.
They are permitted to expense prospecting and drilling costs during the
year those costs are incurred. Weinstein estimates that these deductions
amount to $2.8 billion, while wind and solar plants enjoy real subsidies
not available to other businesses amounting to $12.5 billion per year --
and this does not include state subsidies.
Oil and natural gas companies used to enjoy percentage depletion
allowances as their form of depreciation, but those are now denied to the
large oil companies. Moreover, when the wells they dig prove
unproductive, they can use their losses only to offset gains from their
productive wells.
Oil and natural gas companies pay more taxes to federal and state
governments than does any other sector of the economy. According to the
federal Energy Information Administration, as reported in the Wall St.
Journal, the oil industry paid some $35.7 billion in corporate income
taxes in 2009, the latest year for which data are available.
Wind and solar plants receive subsidies from federal and state governments
equal to or greater than half their cost. They not only pay no taxes, tax
credits being one of the incentives to construct such facilities, but they
often receive cash and land from both the federal and state governments
and exemption from local government property taxes. Many are also enabled
to borrow at low interest rates through federal government guarantees of
loans made by banks and other commercial lenders.
Solar energy and wind energy may someday be economically feasible without
government subsidies, but they are not feasible now. None of the wind and
solar electric generating plants makes a net economic contribution to the
economy. To the contrary, they impede recovery by consuming more
resources than they produce, require substantial imports worsening our
international trade deficit, and discourage investment in manufacturing.
The money wasted on subsidies to windmills and solar energy-producers
should be put to better uses. To mention a few, controlling floods,
getting hurricanes and tornadoes under control, and reducing the
destructive consequences of natural disasters. Then the USA could be
ready the next time solar-magnetic and lunar factors cause extreme weather
events. That would be a meaningful climate policy!
--
Obama's black racist USAG appointee.
Eric Holder, racist black United States Attorney General drops voter
intimidation charges against the Black Panthers, "You are about to be
ruled by the black man, cracker!"
Eric Holder, prejudiced black United States Attorney General settles the
hate crime debate, "Whites Not Protected by Hate Crime Laws."
Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact, to
former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel of New
York's million dollar tax evasion.
Barack Obama and Eric Holder, committed treason by knowingly and
deliberately arming enemies of the United States of America through
Operation Fast and Furious. Complicit in the murder of Federal employees
during the execution of their duties.
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
eather.html
Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory supporters are in the midst of a
big propaganda campaign leading to a global "Connect the Dots" day on May
5. Their goal is to convince the public that recent extreme weather
events are due to global warming and that global warming is man-made.
They are preparing public opinion for the huge economic sacrifice involved
in curbing carbon dioxide emissions, a process which they will demand at
the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development from June 20
through 22.
So far, their propaganda campaign has been succeeding. In fact, the New
York Times reported on April 17 ("In Poll, Many Link Weather Extremes to
Climate Change") that the public now believes stuff that the scientists
who adhere to AGW theory don't even claim to be true:
Scientists may hesitate to link some of the weather extremes of recent
years to global warming -- but the public, it seems, is already there.
A poll due for release on Wednesday shows that a large majority of
Americans believe that this year's unusually warm winter, last year's
blistering summer and some other weather disasters were probably made
worse by global warming. And by a 2-to-1 margin, the public says the
weather has been getting worse, rather than better, in recent years.
The survey, the most detailed to date on the public response to weather
extremes, comes atop other polling showing a recent uptick in concern
about climate change. Read together, the polls suggest that direct
experience of erratic weather may be convincing some people that the
problem is no longer just a vague and distant threat.
Meanwhile, the mainstream media has been largely hiding from the public
the actual cause of recent extreme weather events -- big amplitude swings
in the jet stream. In an April 2 YouTube video (click here to see it),
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPNT0t1_bW0
British astrophysicist Piers Corbyn explains why severe weather occurs
regularly every 60 years, plus or minus 5 years:
Technically, they say, "Well, the big extremes are caused by changes in
the track of low pressure systems as they go around the globe, and when
there's big amplitude swings in this track, then you do get more extreme
events." However, they don't know where these big amplitude swings come
from.
However, we do understand the origin of these big amplitude swings in the
jet stream, and these are caused by a mingling of solar-magnetic factors
and lunar factors which is why the basic signal is the 60 year signal
we've mentioned.
And for the last three years we have been in the middle of one of these
peaks of big swings in the jet stream, and we are going to carry on like
this for at least another year or so. And right now we are in, perhaps,
the most exciting phase of this 60 year cycle.
Corbyn is a brilliant astrophysicist. He looks for repetitions of
historic solar-magnetic factors (such as sunspots) and bases his long-
range weather forecasts on what those patterns, when combined with moon
factors, caused in the past. His long-range predictions have been correct
about 85% of the time. He makes his money, mostly from British insurance
companies and farmers, by successfully predicting extreme weather events.
We are fortunate that he is starting to make long-term predictions about
U.S. weather. In the same YouTube video, he notes that he correctly
predicted March's extreme weather in the U.S.:
The thirteenth to fifteenth of March, we specifically predicted this in
our forecast in detail, we said there would be tornadoes and giant hail in
the lower Midwest. That happened.
We also said, after that there would be a big heat wave in the central and
eastern parts of the USA. That happened.
And then we said that would turn into or change into something more
focused on Texas with intense heat in Texas. That happened.
And then, finally, there was a cold blast just coming down from Canada in
the Northeast part of America at the end of March carrying into April
which we predicted.
The theory that climate change, both global warming and cooling, is
related to magnetic disturbances on the sun and cloud-creating cosmic rays
is supported by a large number of scientists who have published their
findings in refereed journals (click here to watch a review).
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073
This theory has succeeded in explaining climate changes whether the scale
is years or hundreds of millions of years. For example, it explains the
colder climate from 2006-2010 as partly the result of reduced solar
activity and the recent warmer climate as partly the result of solar
activity rising throughout 2011.
Its adherents don't deny that global temperatures may be influenced by
greenhouse gas concentrations, but they hold that the influence of
greenhouse gases on the weather is probably small. Once the contributions
of solar and cosmic rays to climate are precisely determined, it will be
possible to determine what is left to be explained by other influences.
In contrast, the AGW theorists can't explain why earth temperatures
stopped rising in 1998, despite the continuing rise in carbon dioxide
concentrations. They are vicious toward those who oppose them, calling
them "deniers" and unscientific. One could argue that it is they who are
the deniers. It is scandalous that none of those involved in the East
Anglia revelations of attempts to suppress publication of contrary
findings has been punished by the universities employing them.
In short, there are two competing theories. The solar/cosmic ray theory
successfully predicts weather and climate. The man-made global warming
theory correctly predicts opinion polls.
President Obama is staking his re-election campaign upon the opinion
polls. His administration is suppressing fossil fuel production and
development. On March 27, Obama's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
limited carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants to 1,000 pounds per
megawatt-hour. This rule prevents the building of the lowest-cost
producers of electricity: coal-fired power plants. It will raise the
price of electricity for American households and businesses.
Then, on March 29, Obama moved to reduce domestic drilling for oil by
calling on Congress to end $4 billion in "taxpayer giveaways" to the oil
industry and instead to double down on investments in clean energy
industries "that have never been more promising."
Dr. Bernard Weinstein, associate director of the Maguire Energy Institute
at Southern Methodist University, in an op-ed in the New York Post, stated
that oil companies enjoy no benefits not available to other businesses.
They are permitted to expense prospecting and drilling costs during the
year those costs are incurred. Weinstein estimates that these deductions
amount to $2.8 billion, while wind and solar plants enjoy real subsidies
not available to other businesses amounting to $12.5 billion per year --
and this does not include state subsidies.
Oil and natural gas companies used to enjoy percentage depletion
allowances as their form of depreciation, but those are now denied to the
large oil companies. Moreover, when the wells they dig prove
unproductive, they can use their losses only to offset gains from their
productive wells.
Oil and natural gas companies pay more taxes to federal and state
governments than does any other sector of the economy. According to the
federal Energy Information Administration, as reported in the Wall St.
Journal, the oil industry paid some $35.7 billion in corporate income
taxes in 2009, the latest year for which data are available.
Wind and solar plants receive subsidies from federal and state governments
equal to or greater than half their cost. They not only pay no taxes, tax
credits being one of the incentives to construct such facilities, but they
often receive cash and land from both the federal and state governments
and exemption from local government property taxes. Many are also enabled
to borrow at low interest rates through federal government guarantees of
loans made by banks and other commercial lenders.
Solar energy and wind energy may someday be economically feasible without
government subsidies, but they are not feasible now. None of the wind and
solar electric generating plants makes a net economic contribution to the
economy. To the contrary, they impede recovery by consuming more
resources than they produce, require substantial imports worsening our
international trade deficit, and discourage investment in manufacturing.
The money wasted on subsidies to windmills and solar energy-producers
should be put to better uses. To mention a few, controlling floods,
getting hurricanes and tornadoes under control, and reducing the
destructive consequences of natural disasters. Then the USA could be
ready the next time solar-magnetic and lunar factors cause extreme weather
events. That would be a meaningful climate policy!
--
Obama's black racist USAG appointee.
Eric Holder, racist black United States Attorney General drops voter
intimidation charges against the Black Panthers, "You are about to be
ruled by the black man, cracker!"
Eric Holder, prejudiced black United States Attorney General settles the
hate crime debate, "Whites Not Protected by Hate Crime Laws."
Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact, to
former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel of New
York's million dollar tax evasion.
Barack Obama and Eric Holder, committed treason by knowingly and
deliberately arming enemies of the United States of America through
Operation Fast and Furious. Complicit in the murder of Federal employees
during the execution of their duties.
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
AGWFacts
Apr 30, 2012, 11:17:44 AM4/30/12
to
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 20:26:58 +0000 (UTC), "Leroy N. Soetoro"
<leroys...@usurper.org> wrote:
> http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/does_global_warming_cause_extreme_weather.html
> Does global warming cause extreme weather?
No, it does not; no scientist will say it did, does, or can.
> Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory supporters
There is no such theory.
Meanwhile, etreme weather events are increasing at an
unprecedented rate:
http://www.wdam.com/story/14042308/scientists-connect-global-warming-to-extreme-rain
Graphic Plot of thirty year trend of extreme weather in terms of
billion-dollar events:
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/reports/billion/timeseries2011prelim.pdf
Background:
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/nacem/
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/extremes.html
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/billionz.html#chron
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/reports/billion/billion2010.pdf
An increase in extream weather events is an observed fact:
http://kym.massbus.org/graphs/us-extreme.html
http://www.discoverlife.org/pa/or/polistes/pr/2010nsf_macro/references/Parmesan_and_Yohe2003.pdf
http://128.138.136.233/admin/publication_files/resource-53-2000.01.pdf
http://www.agci.org/dB/PDFs/05S2_GMeehl_BAMS3.pdf
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=nasapub
http://www.springerlink.com/index/8FRMXFDR3L592BEJ.pdf
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/earthscan/cpol/2003/00000003/00000003/art00005
http://research.fit.edu/sealevelriselibrary/documents/doc_mgr/470/Global_Developing_Countries_%26_Extreme_Weather_-_Mirza_2003.pdf
http://hydrodictyon.eeb.uconn.edu/people/willig/Willig_pdf/SJ_89_Parmesan_etal_2000.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/index/HP88P63730554V86.pdf
"The 2010 Atlantic hurricane season was a well above average
season due to a moderate La Niña, with the most number of named
storms since the 2005 season. The 2010 Atlantic season ties with
the 1995 Atlantic hurricane season and the 1887 Atlantic hurricane
season for the third largest number of named storms, with 19, and
it also ties with the 1969 Atlantic hurricane season for the
second largest number of hurricanes, with 12.[1] In addition, the
activity in the north Atlantic in 2010 exceeded the activity in
the northwest Pacific Typhoon season. The only other known time
this event happened was in 2005.[2]"
--
Denialism: "The employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance
of legitimate debate where there is none."
<leroys...@usurper.org> wrote:
> http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/does_global_warming_cause_extreme_weather.html
> Does global warming cause extreme weather?
No, it does not; no scientist will say it did, does, or can.
> Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory supporters
Meanwhile, etreme weather events are increasing at an
unprecedented rate:
http://www.wdam.com/story/14042308/scientists-connect-global-warming-to-extreme-rain
Graphic Plot of thirty year trend of extreme weather in terms of
billion-dollar events:
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/reports/billion/timeseries2011prelim.pdf
Background:
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/nacem/
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/extremes.html
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/billionz.html#chron
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/reports/billion/billion2010.pdf
An increase in extream weather events is an observed fact:
http://kym.massbus.org/graphs/us-extreme.html
http://www.discoverlife.org/pa/or/polistes/pr/2010nsf_macro/references/Parmesan_and_Yohe2003.pdf
http://128.138.136.233/admin/publication_files/resource-53-2000.01.pdf
http://www.agci.org/dB/PDFs/05S2_GMeehl_BAMS3.pdf
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=nasapub
http://www.springerlink.com/index/8FRMXFDR3L592BEJ.pdf
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/earthscan/cpol/2003/00000003/00000003/art00005
http://research.fit.edu/sealevelriselibrary/documents/doc_mgr/470/Global_Developing_Countries_%26_Extreme_Weather_-_Mirza_2003.pdf
http://hydrodictyon.eeb.uconn.edu/people/willig/Willig_pdf/SJ_89_Parmesan_etal_2000.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/index/HP88P63730554V86.pdf
"The 2010 Atlantic hurricane season was a well above average
season due to a moderate La Niña, with the most number of named
storms since the 2005 season. The 2010 Atlantic season ties with
the 1995 Atlantic hurricane season and the 1887 Atlantic hurricane
season for the third largest number of named storms, with 19, and
it also ties with the 1969 Atlantic hurricane season for the
second largest number of hurricanes, with 12.[1] In addition, the
activity in the north Atlantic in 2010 exceeded the activity in
the northwest Pacific Typhoon season. The only other known time
this event happened was in 2005.[2]"
--
Denialism: "The employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance
of legitimate debate where there is none."
emoneyjoe
Apr 30, 2012, 9:47:46 PM4/30/12
to
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:17:44 -0600, AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com>
wrote:
Anybody with brains can see that violent
weather is always associated with unusually
cold air aloft moving into a warm moist zone.
How many hurricanes form at the equator?
wrote:
weather is always associated with unusually
cold air aloft moving into a warm moist zone.
How many hurricanes form at the equator?
Sylvia
Jun 13, 2012, 1:22:48 PM6/13/12
to
:-)
I guess that we should extend the facilities management of the wave
differently;
On the other hand, you may look at this site http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/index.html when
talking about the weather;
how do you develop the weather control as well as the concept of the wave processing?
Regards,
I guess that we should extend the facilities management of the wave
differently;
On the other hand, you may look at this site http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/index.html when
talking about the weather;
how do you develop the weather control as well as the concept of the wave processing?
Regards,
0 new messages