Re: The Physical Evidence of Earth's Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Cycle
on bo
"Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote in message
news:2hdti551dgq9srvbu...@4ax.com...
> http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st279
> Executive Summary
>
> The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is
> scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it.
> Instead, the warming seems to be part of a 1,500-year cycle (plus or
> minus 500 years) of moderate temperature swings.
>
And don't forget the data fudging!!
Global Climate Data Tampering Exposed!
Climate Data Tampering In Australia Detected
Climate Data Tampering In Darwin Detected
Climate Data Tampering In New Zealand Detected
Climate Data Tampering In Russia Detected
Climate Data Tampering In Alaska Detected
Climate Data Tampering In Sweden Detected
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/making_sweden_warmer/
Fraudulent Hockey Sticks And Hidden Data
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/#more-4660
Would You Buy A Used Car From These So-Called "Scientists"?
Our gullible alarmist friends have obviously fallen for this scam hook,
line, and sinker!
First we had the IPCC report "The Science of Climate Change 1995", where
lead auther Benjamin D. Santer removed the following conclusions made by
genuine scientists, and without the scientists being made aware of this
change.
"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can
attribute the observed climate changes to the specific cause of increases in
greenhouse gases."
"No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate
change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."
"Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely
to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability
of the climate system are reduced."
Then we have some choice quotes from so-called "consensus scientists".
"The two MMs [Canadian skeptics Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick] have been
after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom
of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than
send to anyone."
Phil Jones email, Feb 2 2005
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report, Kevin and
I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the
peer-review literature is!"
Phil Jones Director, The CRU
[cutting skeptical scientists out of an official UN report]
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment,
and it is a travesty that we can't .there should be even more warming... the
data are surely wrong".
Kevin Trenberth, Climatologist, US Centre for Atmospheric Research
"...If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the
science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn't
being political, it is being selfish. "
Phil Jones Director, The CRU
"We have to get rid of the Medi�val Warm Period" Confided to geophysicist
David Deming by the IPCC, 1995
[Many believe that man to be Jonathan Overpeck, which Prof. Deming didn't
deny in an email response, who would later also serve as an IPCC lead
author.]
"We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data
available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"
Phil Jones Director, The CRU
"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements,
and make little mention of any doubts we might have." Professor Stephen
Schneider
"Humans need a common motivation ... either a real one or else one invented
for the purpose. ... In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages,
famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by
human intervention so the real enemy then, is humanity itself." Club of Rome
declaration
"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is
true.... You are what the media define you to be. Greenpeace became a myth
and fund generating machine." Paul Watson, Co-Founder Greenpeace, Forbes,
Nov. 1991
Now what conclusion would a rational and sceptical person come to?
Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University and chairman
of the George C. Marshall Institute, summed it up nicely after seeing the
changes made to the IPCC report.
"In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community,
including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and
the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing
corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC
report."
Warmest Regards
B0n oz
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
rayk...@rnsmte.com
Ouroboros Rex
Ouroboros Rex
> "on bo" <z...@ccc.com> wrote:
>> "Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote
>
>>> http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st279
>>> Executive Summary
>>>
>>> The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is
>>> scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it.
>>> Instead, the warming seems to be part of a 1,500-year cycle (plus or
>>> minus 500 years) of moderate temperature swings.
>>
>> And don't forget the data fudging!!
>
> on photovoltaic solar cells. The boss had convinced himself we could
> never make cells with less than X efficiency. He wanted to go through
> the database and drop out every experimental cell that had measured
> less than that. It just had to be instrument error.
>
> Of course that would have looked real good and radically changed
> things. It was definitely NOT a high pressure place and funding was
> never in question. He just became so married to his idea that he got
> a blind spot. Luckily every last one of us said it was bogus and he
> finally listened to reason.
>
> Now, move that to AGW where there are terrific political and financial
> pressures and it's not hard to see how it happens. It's simply a
> human emotion gone unchecked. This is far from the first case in
> history where a scientist was so sure of their conclusion that they
> fudged data to prove their case to an unbelieving world. They "knew"
> they would be exonerated in the end so they just took a short cut to
> where they "knew" it would wind up.
Sorry, no such evidence. Zero fraud found in the CRU hack.
HH&C
> Winston_Smith wrote:
> > "on bo" <z...@ccc.com> wrote:
He goes blind.
erschro...@gmail.com
> demonstrate that your claim is true.
No, translation -- it's a right-wing extremist site. Google it.
"NCPA was a member organization of the Cooler Heads Coalition, which
described itself as "an alliance of some two dozen non-profit public
policy groups concerned about the implications of the Kyoto Protocol
for consumers," and which was generally skeptical of the
anthroprogenic global warming theory [6]. NCPA has also recently (as
of January, 2007) undertaken to debunk claims of Peak Oil."
"NCPA's revenue in 2007 was $8.7 million.[7] As of October 2009, the
NCPA web site reported that for 2008 it received 39% of its funding
from foundations, 39% of its funding from individuals and 22% of its
funding from corporations.[8] Its foundation sponsors include the
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the
Earhart Foundation and the Armstrong Foundation.[citation needed] In
1992, the New York Times reported that NCPA was partially funded by
the insurance industry.[9] According to Greenpeace, NCPA received
$540,900 from ExxonMobil in the ten-year period ending 2007."
Hey, Scaife!
"NCPA has an "E-Team" that analyzes environmental policy. The global
warming "experts" on the team are climate skeptics who opposed the
Kyoto Protocol and continue to oppose any regulation of greenhouse
gasses. Global warming "experts" include Marlo Lewis and Christopher
Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Kenneth Green from the
Fraser Institute, Thomas Gale Moore from the Hoover Institution, and
S. Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. NCPA
also hosts a "golabal warming hotline" section on its website (http://
www.ncpa.org/hotlines/global/gwhot.html). The page has links to
articles and testimony skeptical of global warming. NCPA is a member
of the State Policy Network and the Cooler Heads Coalition (as of
4/04)."
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/national-center-policy-analysis
Hey, they claim responsibility for Roth IRAs, Social Security
reform, ...
rayk...@rnsmte.com
leona...@gmail.com
> http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st279
> Executive Summary
>
> The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is
> scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it.
> Instead, the warming seems to be part of a 1,500-year cycle (plus or
> minus 500 years) of moderate temperature swings.
# Where is your proof for that. We have physical proof
that the world still ruuns on the 100,000 year cycle
and that we are at the end of the interglacial period.
>
> It has long been accepted that the Earth has experienced climate
> cycles, most notably the 90,000-year Ice Age cycles. But in the past
> 20 years or so, modern science has discovered evidence that within
> those broad Ice Age cycles, the Earth also experiences 1,500-year
> warming-cooling cycles.
# Here we go with science fiction, Cites please
>The Earth has been in the Modern Warming
> portion of the current cycle since about 1850, following a Little Ice
> Age from about 1300 to 1850. It appears likely that warming will
> continue for some time into the future, perhaps 200 years or more,
> regardless of human activity.
Sorry old boy but you are looking at bad data.
The real data shows a lot of ups and downs since the
end of the "little Ice age" which was a 'warm-up'
for the real thing.
>
> Evidence of the global nature of the 1,500-year climate cycles
> includes very long-term proxies for temperature change - ice cores,
> seabed and lake sediments, and fossils of pollen grains and tiny sea
> creatures. There are also shorter-term proxies - cave stalagmites,
> tree rings from trees both living and buried, boreholes and a wide
> variety of other temperature proxies.
# You can take your proxies and shove them where the
sun don't shine. Jones, Briffa, Mann & Wigley have
shown us that.
# The world's oceans are being heated by
underwater tectonic activity - underwater
volcanic eruptions and blisteringly hot magma
seeping up from cracks in the sea floor.
The heated ocean water creates high levels of
CO2 that it sends aloft along with huge amounts
of moisture. That moisture becomes precipitation
— rain in the spring, summer, and fall, and snow
in the winter. Increased amounts of moisture in
the upper atmosphere equals increased amounts
of precipitation.
The hotter the oceans, the more water vapor sent
heavenward and the heavier the precipitation.
In 1979, Dr Genevieve Woillard, a paleologist in France,
concluded from detailed studies that the shift from a
warm, interglacial climate to ice age conditions at the
beginning of the last ice age, some 100,000 years ago,
took "less than 20 years." Her observations led her to
conclude we may be in a similar period of rapid
climatic change.
Research has shown that this 20-year period is one in
which Mother Nature wreaks havoc on humanity.
If the unchallenged results of the work of Woillard and
others who studied past ice ages are any indication of
the pace of glaciation, once it starts, the transition
period is a mere 20 years or so. And we may be well
into that 20-year period now. Woillard estimated that
the period before that final 20 years — when the earth
began gearing up for an end to the interglacial period
— could be as long as 150 years and as short as 75
years."
According to Woillard's studies and those of other
paleological climate researchers, the transition
between interglacial and glacial periods is one of
increasing violence — more volcanic eruptions,
storms, earthquakes, and other natural disasters.
# I this case it seems to be a 1,000 year period and lots
of extreme climate events are accelerating. Extreme
hot spots and cold spots, floods and drought, volcanic
action (15 active volcanos today; 9 active for a year or
more , 60,000 Philippinos evacuated from Mayon
Mountain this week)
If your refrigerator is running low on freon it will not
keep its contents cold. If the arctic is our refrigerator,
and the refrigerator is rapidly running out of coolant,
how can it create colder and colder weather fronts??
The mechanics here are simple. The earth is getting
warmer in some areas thanks to the heat being given
off by the seas – picture standing next to a pot of
boiling water – you'll feel the heat. Stand next to a
heated ocean and you'll feel the warmth.
When that warm air coming north from the tropics
meets the frigid air coming south from the pole, it
creates violence. And the hotter the air from the south
and the colder the air from the north, the more violent
the collision will be. Tornadoes, violent storms, and
blizzards are some of the results.
This process feeds on itself. As the amount of
atmospheric moisture increases more precipitation is
sent poleward, resulting in more snowfall to build
heavier and heavier polar ice packs which fail to
decrease in summertime because the cloud cover
created by the moisture-laden air transported from the
tropics prevents any thawing.
As the ice packs grow deeper and heavier, more
magma is squeezed out and sent toward the equators,
creating more volcanic activity, which spews more
and more volcanic ash into the upper atmosphere,
along with enormous quantities of greenhouse gasses.
This results in greater and greater amounts of
moisture-laden clouds being sent poleward. And so on.
As the glaciation process continues, winters will get
longer and longer; that's colder air reaches farther and
farther toward the equator. Summers will get shorter
and shorter, and growing seasons will slowly vanish.
Areas previously blessed with temperate climates are
transformed into subarctic regions, and the subtropics
turn colder and colder.
And all this can happen in a matter of a very few years.
So few, that the world may very well learn that the
interglacial period has been replaced by the glaciation
process before the end of the next decade — or even
earlier.
# My calculations estimate that the violent period will end
end about 2050 and the polar ice will be moving toward
the Equator somewhere between 2100 and 2150 but it
could happen much sooner
# Bring your skates
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
Strabo
> "erschro...@gmail.com" <erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 21, 5:28 pm, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:57:40 -0600, "Ouroboros Rex" wrote:
>>>> Winston_Smith wrote:
>
>>>>> http://www.ncpa.org/
>>>> Sorry, denialist lie site.
>>> Translation, they don't agree with you. Calling them a name does not
>>> demonstrate that your claim is true.
>> No, translation -- it's a right-wing extremist site. Google it.
>
> site.
>
> Therefore, it must be discredited by the left. While their precious
> left-wing extremist sites are to be taken at face value and
> uncritically.
>
> Why is every damn thing in these debates extremes? Is there no
> rational middle anymore? Or is it just that wingers of both flavors
> call the middle extremists to dismiss even moderate opinions?
>
An excellent question. Here's a thought.
Is there ever a rational middle? Are people actually in agreement on
issues based on a comprehensive understanding of the subject at hand?
I say no. Most people are what they seem to be most of the time simply
because that position does not require a clarity of purpose or a
defensible basis in fact. In short, for most of mankind, their position
on any intellectual matter is whatever makes them feel emotionally
comfortable. Alter the emotional response and they'll seek a new
equilibrium. This results in what we see as splits or divisions
in belief structures. Politicians, Popes and other manipulators rely
on this phenomena.
Let's apply this to climate.
Few people grasp the concept of climate or its causes and effects. Add
to this the intricacies and unknowns of the sub-systems which underpin
climate and you can be assured that no one can understand it all. This
is the perfect media for introducing emotional discomfort.
The 'most', or the body that makes up the social majority, can only
take a position within their individual comfort zones. So long as
there appears to be a basis for belief, the majority is comfortable,
but when that basis is threatened, a new understanding is sought.
For those who do not comprehend the carbon cycle, the differences
between volcanic produced CO2 and CO2 by human exhalation is
meaningless. But when emotional discomfort is introduced and a decision
concerning the processes appears to be important to their peers,
individuals look for an appropriate label which they can wear.
But what do people concerned about climate give as an explanation for
their decision to identify with certain social and political labels?
One cannot appear to decide arbitrarily or capriciously. What do they
say actually motivates them?
The modern man believes in Science and calls on Science to support
his beliefs and provide explanations. To the layman Science is
unknowable and incomprehensible and is not to be viewed in its naked
form. Instead Science must be interpreted by a special class of
experts known as Scientists in language which can be understood when
wrapped in social values. As the social values that apply to Science
change, so do the social and political affiliations.
In the case of climate, the social wrapper for the 'left' is a belief
in the catch-all term, sustainability. They claim that this position is
what Science tells them but in fact it appeals to those looking for a
superior moral position and a political hammer with which to beat on
those they consider inferior. Science provides them with the excuse.
And so, we see a split in the body politic as the Earth sustainers move
away from the "rational middle."
Mitchell Holman
fed1-41e5-bff...@r12g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 20, 6:48�pm, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote:
>> http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st279
>> Executive Summary
>>
>> The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is
>> scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it.
>> Instead, the warming seems to be part of a 1,500-year cycle (plus or
>> minus 500 years) of moderate temperature swings.
>
> # Where is your proof for that. We have physical proof
> that the world still ruuns on the 100,000 year cycle
> and that we are at the end of the interglacial period.
>>
>> It has long been accepted that the Earth has experienced climate
>> cycles, most notably the 90,000-year Ice Age cycles. But in the past
>> 20 years or so, modern science has discovered evidence that within
>> those broad Ice Age cycles, the Earth also experiences 1,500-year
>> warming-cooling cycles.
>
> # Here we go with science fiction, Cites please
>
Instead of demanding proof you are supposed to be providing it.
What is taking you so long?
"As many glaciers that are shrinking an equal number are growing"
"Leonard78sp", unproven claim, 1/6/09
"Currently more glaciers are growing than shrinking.
"Leonard78sp", unproven claim, 6/20/09