What's new

SRM/GEOENGINEERING

trichrider

trichrider

Kiss My Ring
Veteran
"you must spread some reputation around before giving it to HidingInTheHaze again."

rite seven mentions the sun...
 
trichrider

trichrider

Kiss My Ring
Veteran
trichrider

trichrider

Kiss My Ring
Veteran

Mixing it up: Study provides new insight into Southern Ocean behaviour.

A new study has found that turbulent mixing in the deep waters of the Southern Ocean, which has a profound effect on global ocean circulation and climate, varies with the strength of surface eddies the ocean equivalent of storms in the atmosphere and possibly also wind speeds.

It is the first study to link eddies at the surface to deep mixing on timescales of months to decades.

This new insight into how the Southern Ocean behaves will allow scientists to build computer models that can better predict how our climate is going to change in the future.

The findings are published in the latest issue of Nature Geoscience.

The Southern Ocean plays a pivotal role in the global overturning circulation, a system of surface and deep currents linking all oceans and one of the fundamental determinants of the planet’s climate. The Southern Ocean around Antarctica is the only location where the ocean can circulate freely all the way around the globe without continental barriers.

Because the ocean is made up of many layers of water that are dependent on temperature and salinity, water moves easily along horizontal or ‘isopycnal’ layers, but mixes only slowly across the layers, known as ‘diapycnal’ mixing. This combination of diapycnal and isopycnal mixing drives the upwelling of deep waters up to the surface, forming an ‘upper’ and ‘lower’ overturning cell. When deep waters rise to the surface, they bring with them the nutrients that plankton need to grow. Conversely, as surface waters sink they take heat and dissolved CO2 from the atmosphere, strongly shaping regional and global climate change.

IMAGE:
This is a wave in the Southern Ocean.

Click here for more information.

The researchers took measurements of small-scale temperature and velocity fluctuations, to measure the diapycnal movements in the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) across the Drake Passage region of the Southern Ocean.

The data revealed that, during the period of their measurements, turbulence in deep waters significantly correlated with surface eddy activity. The mechanism that causes eddies in the surface ocean leads to an intensification of currents in the top and bottom layers of the ocean. When such instability arises, strengthened bottom currents interact with rough bottom topography to generate internal waves that eventually devolve into turbulence. This process provides a source of energy for the mixing of abyssal waters, which, in turn, hastens the global overturning circulation.

The researchers established that deep water eddies are likely energised by strong westerly winds over the Southern Ocean that force the ACC and that abyssal mixing, on time scales of months to decades, reacts to this changing atmospheric climate.

Study co-author Katy Sheen, a Postdoctoral Research Fellow from Ocean and Earth Science at the University of Southampton, says: “These findings will help us to understand the processes that drive the ocean circulation and mixing so that we can better predict how our Earth system will respond to the increased levels of carbon dioxide that we have released into the atmosphere.”

The researchers used data from the ‘Diapycnal and Isopycnal Mixing Experiment in the Southern Ocean’ (DIMES) project, a UK/US field program aimed at measuring diapycnal and isopycnal mixing in the Southern Ocean. DIMES released a chemical dye tracer into the ACC about a mile below the sea surface. Over five years, the horizontal and vertical spread of the tracer was mapped out by measuring its concentration in hundreds of seawater samples, to identify how quickly the Southern Ocean moved water particles around. It also used a mooring cluster of sensors in the Drake Passage to provide detailed time series information on the processes responsible for the mixing of the tracer.

http://healthmedicinet.com/news/mix...es-new-insight-into-southern-ocean-behaviour/
 
foomar

foomar

Luddite
ICMag Donor
Veteran
for foomar, some contemporary footage of chemtrails...
Click to expand...

That's an impressive clip but nothing to do with the current chemtrail silliness.

The original concept was to protect ships from torpedo bombers or submarines which relied on direct observation of the target , an extension of ships making smoke which was an important battle tactic before radar took over.

Guess a clip of a WW1 destroyer making smoke would be evidence of a chemship . . .
 
trichrider

trichrider

Kiss My Ring
Veteran
:laughing:

unable to extrapolate technological advances?
the clip was to demonstrate the capability, which it did, from the forties...you remember, when you were a teenager...
much more sophisticated presently.

if you could describe altering earths atmosphere as sophisticated.

:wtf:

mammals emit huge amounts of CO2...remember Chemdog?

:dance013:
 
foomar

foomar

Luddite
ICMag Donor
Veteran
There is nothing to extrapolate , just you and some other chemtards twisting an ancient film clip of something completely unrelated to suit your insane belief .
 
trichrider

trichrider

Kiss My Ring
Veteran
you seem to be the one twisted.

what a party favor!

...now you are diagnosing mental illness by interpreting keystrokes.
 
trichrider

trichrider

Kiss My Ring
Veteran
foomar said:
It is well debunked here

http://contrailscience.com/what-in-the-world-are-they-spraying/

If you state your evidence for a belief in chemtrails I will be happy to educate you , one fact at a time.
Click to expand...

:dunno:


start here:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
http://www.osti.gov/oberabstracts/se...tstatus=active

ma

[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Register Number: EE-630-EECA
Title: Effects of Aerosols and Clouds on Climate Change Forcing
Principal Investigator: McGraw, Robert

Institution: BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
Institution Address: Upton, NY 11973-5000
Awarded Amount to Date and B&R Code :
FY 2014 $0 k
FY 2013 $4625 k KP1701
FY 2012 $4698 k KP1701
FY 2011 $4663 k KP1701
FY 2010 $2288 k KP1701000

DOE Program Manager: Ashley Williamson

BER Division: Climate and Environmental Sciences
Research Area: Atmospheric System Research
Abstract Submit Date: 09/30/2013
Project Term: 10/01/2009 - 09/30/2014
Abstract: Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) research focuses on determining the effects of aerosols and clouds on climate change forcing and on accurately and efficiently including these effects in models. Aerosol direct and indirect contributions to global-average forcing offset contributions from greenhouse gases and dominate uncertainty of anthropogenic influences on climate. This uncertainty translates to an inability to reliably predict the amount of incremental atmospheric CO2 that would result in a given increase in global mean temperature and, more generally, the climate response to potential perturbations from changes in future energy needs. BNL research is organized according to four principal activities: (1) field observations and interpretation; (2) radar/lidar/satellite observations and analysis; (3) theory and parameterization; and, (4) climate sensitivity studies. Emphasis is placed on describing aerosol and cloud microphysical properties and their interactions (aerosol direct and indirect effects) and on the chemical/physical/meteorological processes that govern their evolution and impact on the Earth’s energy balance. Aerosol research focuses on process-level understanding in concert with laboratory and field measurements that follow the life cycle of aerosols, their radiative impact, and their effects on cloud properties. Comprehensive cloud studies integrating theory, modeling, and multiple observations from in situ (e.g., aircraft), remote sensing (radar), and coordinated analysis of long-term measurements collected at Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) sites are conducted to investigate the microphysical, radiative, and dynamical properties of clouds and precipitation. These are strongly integrated activities all of which contribute to process-level understanding and provide the science foundation to meet Department of Energy (DOE) objectives by improving overall understanding of how aerosol-cloud direct and indirect effects affect the Earth's radiant-energy balance and by quantifying the degree to which changes in aerosol and cloud properties offset the positive forcing from greenhouse gases.[/FONT]
when you've
[/FONT]
 
trichrider

trichrider

Kiss My Ring
Veteran
Hitachi Develops World's Smallest RFID Chip

The Japanese giant Hitachi has developed the world's smallest and thinnest Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) chip. Measuring only 0.15 x 0.15 millimeters in size and 7.5 micrometers thick, the wireless chip is a smaller version of the previous record holder - Hitachi's 0.4 x 0.4 mm "Micro-Chip". The company used semiconductor miniaturization and electron beam technology to write data on the chip substrates to achieve this decrease in size. The new chips have a wide range of potential applications from military to transportation, logistics and even consumer electronics.

Nicknamed "Powder" or "Dust", these chips consist of 128-bit ROM (Read Only Memory) that can store a 38-digit number. Hitachi says the distance between each circuit element was reduced using the Silicon-on-Insulator (SOI) process, where an insulation layer and a monocrystalline silicon layer are formed upon the silicon base substrate, and the transistor is then formed on this SOI substrate.

When compared to the conventional process where a transistor is formed directly upon the silicon substrate, this technology significantly reduces parasitic capacitance and current leakage, improving the transistor's performance. The SOI process also prevents the interference between neighboring devices, which often causes product malfunctions. Thanks to an insulator surrounding each device, Hitachi experts say that even when the devices are in close proximity, higher integration is achieved on an even smaller area.

The surface area of the new chips was reduced to a quarter of the original 0.3 x 0.3 mm, 60µm-thick chip developed by Hitachi in 2003.
The company says that developments in thin chip fabrication technology enabled the significant decrease in width – to one-eighth of that of the previous model. With more chips that can be fabricated on a single wafer, productivity was increased by over four times, and Hitachi expects this will open the way to new applications for wireless RFID chips.

The µ-Chip uses an external antenna to receive radio waves, which can be transformed and wirelessly transmitted as a unique ID number. The data is written during the fabrication process, using ROM, and is therefore non-rewritable, providing a high level of authenticity. "By taking advantage of the merits of compactness, high authenticity and wireless communication, and combining it with Internet technology, the µ-Chip may be utilized in a broad range of applications such as security, transportation, amusement, traceability and logistics" – said Hitachi engineers who worked on the project.

Hitachi is continuing to develop technologies that increase communication's distance range and decrease antenna size, whilst preserving high reliability and aiming for improved productivity. The company said that the enhanced compactness and thinness of the new chip has further broadened the range of possible applications, including gift certificates that can be authenticated. The new RFID "powder" can also be incorporated into thin paper, such as currency, creating so-called "bugged" money.

Miniature RFID chips may also have advanced military applications such as smartdust. Smartdust is the concept of wireless MEMS (Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems) sensors that can detect anything from light and temperature to vibrations. Using a large amount of sensors is not a new concept - the U.S. military experimented with this idea already during the Vietnam War (Operation Igloo White).

While the older sensors were relatively large and only somewhat effective, Professor Christopher Pister from UC Berkeley suggested in 2001 to create a new type of micro sensor that could theoretically be as small as a grain of sand. Research into this idea is ongoing and is being funded by DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency). What was only a theoretical concept in 2001 has now become a reality with the latest development by Hitachi, and could find its way to intelligence agencies across the world.

RFID chips are also a source for increasing controversy surrounding issues of privacy. An RFID chip can be used to track the location of unsuspecting individuals who have bought products that include RFID tags in their package. Having miniature cheap RFID chips, such as those developed by Hitachi, implanted inside anything we buy might make many people feel very uncomfortable. However, big businesses believe that consumers' fears are dwarfed by the benefits of RFID chips, which include reduced theft, digital real time inventory, and better information on consumer shopping habits.

TFOT looked at several RFID related technologies including HP's Memory Spot Chip, which is some what similar to RFID technology (although there are also some important differences), The RFID Loc8tor that can identify special RFID tags from a distance of up to 183 meters (600 feet), and a new Nanobattery technology developed at the Tel Aviv University, which could power semi-active RFID chips in the future.

Hitachi is constantly developing new and advanced chips. After publishing the information regarding the 0.15 x 0.15 millimeter RFID chip back in 2006, the company apparently completed working on the improved RFID chip in early 2007. According to the Nikkei website, Hitachi is now planning on developing an even smaller RFID chip using 65-nanometer lithographic technology.

http://www.riseearth.com/2013/01/hi...utm_campaign=Feed:+riseearth/KZKa+(RiseEarth)

,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CijsvAGU6-c#t=217

TED Talk on sensing and technology...combined with smartdust, smells bad.
 
trichrider

trichrider

Kiss My Ring
Veteran
Errors and frauds of global warming science
01.09.2014



By Gary Novak

Errors and frauds of global warming science. 53466.jpeg

Print version
+ - Font Size
Send to friend

Modern global warming science began in 1979 with the publication of Charney et al in response to a request from a U.S. governmental office to create a study group for answering questions about global warming. Charney et al modeled atmospheric effects and drew the conclusion that the average earth temperature would increase by about 3°C upon doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the air.

Charney et al did not have a known mechanism for global warming to base their modeling on. Their publication was total fakery stating deliberate absurdities, such as modeling "horizontal diffusive heat exchange," which doesn't exist.

In 1984 and 1988, Hansen et al did similar modeling but added a concept for heat produced by carbon dioxide, which they derived from assumed history. Over the previous century, a temperature increase of 0.6°C was assumed to have been caused by an increase in CO2 of 100 parts per million in the atmosphere. Their modeling then had the purpose of determining secondary effects, primarily caused by an assumed increase in water vapor. In other words, a primary effect was based upon the historical record, while secondary effects were modeled.

This is the approach taken to this day, while refinements are developed. There were major problems in using history for the primary effect. Firstly, the historical effect included secondary effects which could not be separated out, and no attempt was made to do so. This means the assumed primary effect included secondary effects. Secondly, there was no place for other effects in attributing the entire history to CO2.

Therefore, an attempt to determine the primary effect was made by Myhre et al in 1998 (4) by using radiative transfer equations. Those equations only show the rate of depletion of radiation as the concentration of a gas increases. They say nothing about heat. An impossibly complex analysis would be required to evaluate the resulting heat, but no such analysis was mentioned in the publication by Myhre et al. Even worse, Myhre et al added more atmospheric modeling in determining the primary effect including the effects of clouds.

These publications cannot be viewed as honest. They lack a consistent logic and fabricate conclusions with no scientific method at arriving at such conclusions. Furthermore, these publications are not science as the acquisition of evidence, since modeling is the projection of assumptions with no method of acquiring evidence. Modeling may be a tool for sociologists and politicians but has no place in science. Science attempts to verify through reproducible evidence, while modeling is nothing but an expression of opinions with no new evidence being acquired.

Even after Myhre et al supposedly determined the primary effect (said to be 5.35 times the natural log of final carbon dioxide concentration divided by prior concentration-a three component fudge factor) there was no known mechanism for carbon dioxide (or any greenhouse gas) creating global warming.

In 2001, three years after Myhre et al's publication, the IPCC described the mechanism this way: "Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation in the middle of its 15 mm [sic] band to the extent that radiation in the middle of this band cannot escape unimpeded: this absorption is saturated. This, however, is not the case for the band's wings. It is because of these effects of partial saturation..."

Saturation means all available radiation gets used up. Heinz Hug stated in his publication that saturation occurs in 10 meters at the center of the absorption curve for the 15µm band (http://nov79.com/gbwm/hnzh.html#ten). On the shoulders of the absorption curves are molecules which have stretched bonds causing them to absorb at slightly altered wavelength. It is supposedly these molecules which do the heating for greenhouse gases, because they do not use up all available radiation; and therefore, more of the gases absorbs more radiation.

Scientists said that 5% of the CO2 molecules were effective on the shoulders for creating global warming. This roughly means that radiation would travel 20 times farther before being absorbed. But 20 times 10 meters is only 200 meters. Air mixes in such a short distance, which means there is no temperature change. Absorbing radiation in 200 meters is no different than absorbing it in 10 meters. In other words, the 5% claim was nothing but a fake statement for rationalizing. The shamelessness and gall of making up this subject on whim and then claiming it is science is unprecedented. Real scientists are not that way.

Since this mechanism would not stand up to criticism, scientists changed their mind about the mechanism a few years ago and said the real mechanism occurs about 9 kilometers up in the atmosphere. (The normal atmosphere, troposphere, goes up about 17 km average.) Trivial rationalizations were used, mainly that the absorption bands get narrower at lower air pressure, so they don't overlap with water vapor.

There are two major problems with the analysis for 9 km up. One, there is not much space left for adding heat. And two, the temperature increase required for radiating the heat back down to the surface is at least 24°C up there for each 1°C increase near the surface-not accounting for oceans (http://nov79.com/gbwm/satn.html#upa). Oceans will absorb the heat for centuries or millennia, which means 70% of the heat disappears during human influences. So the total would need to be 80°C at 9 km up to create the claimed 1°C near ground level. No temperature increase has been detected at 9 km up due to carbon dioxide.

Notice that the fakes didn't have a mechanism and didn't know where it was occurring 30 years after the first models were constructed in 1979 (said to be only off by 15%) and 10 years after the fudge factor was contrived for pinning down the primary effect, which the mechanism is supposed to represent. How could they get the primary effect (fudge factor) without knowing whether it was occurring at ground level or 9 km up?

Why do nonscientists assume it is self-evident that greenhouse gases create global warming, when scientists cannot describe a mechanism? Extreme over-simplification appears to be the reason. They assume that absorbing radiation is producing heat. Guess what. A jar of pickles absorbs radiation but it doesn't heat the kitchen. Total heat effects are complex, and they equilibrate.

What really happens is that the planet is cooled by radiation which goes around greenhouse gases, not through them. Cooling results in an equilibrium temperature which is independent of how heat gets into the atmosphere. It means greenhouse gases have no influence upon the temperature of the planet.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is so low that all biology is on the verge of becoming extinct due to a shortage of CO2 which is needed for photosynthesis. There was twenty times as much CO2 in the atmosphere when modern photosynthesis evolved. Oceans continuously absorb CO2 and convert it into calcium carbonate and limestone. The calcium never runs out, and the pH of the oceans never drops below 8.1 for this reason. It's the pH which calcium carbonate buffers at. If not, why hasn't four billion years been long enough to get there?

http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/01-09-2014/128413-global_warming_science-0/
 
S

Skinny Leaf

Well-known member
Veteran
http://nypost.com/2014/09/14/leo-v-science-vanishing-evidence-for-climate-change/

In the runup to the Sept. 23 UN Climate Summit in New York, Leonardo DiCaprio is releasing a series of films about the “climate crisis.”
The first is “Carbon,” which tells us the world is threatened by a “carbon monster.” Coal, oil, natural gas and other carbon-based forms of energy are causing dangerous climate change and must be turned off as soon as possible, DiCaprio says.
But he has identified the wrong monster. It is the climate scare itself that is the real threat to civilization.
DiCaprio is an actor, not a scientist; it’s no real surprise that his film is sensationalistic and error-riddled. Other climate-change fantasists, who do have a scientific background, have far less excuse.
Science is never settled, but the current state of “climate change” science is quite clear: There is essentially zero evidence that carbon dioxide from human activities is causing catastrophic climate change.
Yes, the “executive summary” of reports from the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change continue to sound the alarm — but the summary is written by the politicians. The scientific bulk of the report, while still tinged with improper advocacy, has all but thrown in the towel.
And the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change lists thousands of scientific papers that either debunk or cast serious doubt on the supposed “consensus” model.
Oregon-based physicist Gordon Fulks sums it up well: “CO2 is said to be responsible for global warming that is not occurring, for accelerated sea-level rise that is not occurring, for net glacial and sea ice melt that is not occurring . . . and for increasing extreme weather that is not occurring.”
Consider:
 According to NASA satellites and all ground-based temperature measurements, global warming ceased in the late 1990s. This, when CO2 levels have risen almost 10 percent since 1997. The post-1997 CO2 emissions represent an astonishing 30 percent of all human-related emissions since the industrial revolution began. That we’ve seen no warming contradicts all CO2-based climate models upon which global-warming concerns are founded.
Rates of sea-level rise remain small and are even slowing, over recent decades averaging about 1 millimeter per year as measured by tide gauges and 2 to 3 mm/year as inferred from “adjusted” satellite data. Again, this is far less than what the alarmists suggested.
 Satellites also show that a greater area of Antarctic sea ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. In other words, the ice caps aren’t melting.
 A 2012 IPCC report concluded that there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events in the modern era. The NIPCC 2013 report concluded the same. Yes, Hurricane Sandy was devastating — but it’s not part of any new trend.
The climate scare, Fulks sighs, has “become a sort of societal pathogen that virulently spreads misinformation in tiny packages like a virus.” He’s right — and DiCaprio’s film is just another vector for spreading the virus.
The costs of feeding the climate-change “monster” are staggering. According to the Congressional Research Service, from 2001 to 2014 the US government spent $131 billion on projects meant to combat human-caused climate change, plus $176 billion for breaks for anti-CO2 energy initiatives.
Federal anti-climate-change spending is now running at $11 billion a year, plus tax breaks of $20 billion a year. That adds up to more than double the $14.4 billion worth of wheat produced in the United States in 2013.
Dr Bjørn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, calculates that the European Union’s goal of a 20 percent reduction in CO2 emissions below 1990 levels by 2020, currently the most severe target in the world, will cost almost $100 billion a year by 2020, or more than $7 trillion over the course of this century.
Lomborg, a supporter of the UN’s climate science, notes that this would buy imperceptible improvement: “After spending all that money, we would not even be able to tell the difference.”
Al Gore was right in one respect: Climate change is a moral issue — but that’s because there is nothing quite so immoral as well-fed, well-housed Westerners assuaging their consciences by wasting huge amounts of money on futile anti-global-warming policies, using money that could instead go to improve living standards in developing countries.
That is where the moral outrage should lie. Perhaps DiCaprio would like to make a film about it?

Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa-based International Climate Science Coalition. Bob Carter is former professor and head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University in Australia.
 
harold

harold

Member
The Midwest Respiratory Crisis – Infected Chemtrail Beta Test?

Hospital sets patient record as virus spreads.

Medical officials admitted a record number of children to a local hospital over the weekend because of what they believe to be a rare respiratory virus spreading throughout the country.

Although there’s been no confirmed cases of the enterovirus at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, officials admitted 540 patients Friday, said Dr. Derek Wheeler, associate chief of staff at the hospital.

The previous record was around 515, Wheeler said.

Some reports out of Missouri and Colorado suggest the virus, with symptoms similar to the common cold, brought sicker patients to hospitals, Wheeler said.

“We’re just seeing the (increased) volumes, we haven’t seen (patients) sicker than usual yet,” he said.

Hospitals from other states have placed restrictions on visitations, but Wheeler said there are no plans to do that in Cincinnati.



The virus is similar to what doctors treat during cold and flu season. That means nothing really changes if a child comes down with the rare virus, he said.

“The bottom line is this is a virus you wouldn’t treat with antibiotics, so other than the (high-level of) interest, there’s no reason we would need to know it’s an enterovirus,” Wheeler said.

(Source) http://www.cincinnati.com/story/new...-local-hospital-sets-patient-record/15312365/
 
G

GrinStick

Active member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu_ok37HDuE#t=631

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/

To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here
Comment Now
Follow Comments
English: Ice age Earth at glacial maximum. Bas...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Around 1250 A.D., historical records show, ice packs began showing up farther south in the North Atlantic. Glaciers also began expanding on Greenland, soon to threaten Norse settlements on the island. From 1275 to 1300 A.D., glaciers began expanding more broadly, according to radiocarbon dating of plants killed by the glacier growth. The period known today as the Little Ice Age was just starting to poke through.

Summers began cooling in Northern Europe after 1300 A.D., negatively impacting growing seasons, as reflected in the Great Famine of 1315 to 1317. Expanding glaciers and ice cover spreading across Greenland began driving the Norse settlers out. The last, surviving, written records of the Norse Greenland settlements, which had persisted for centuries, concern a marriage in 1408 A.D. in the church of Hvalsey, today the best preserved Norse ruin.

Colder winters began regularly freezing rivers and canals in Great Britain, the Netherlands and Northern France, with both the Thames in London and the Seine in Paris frozen solid annually. The first River Thames Frost Fair was held in 1607. In 1607-1608, early European settlers in North America reported ice persisting on Lake Superior until June. In January, 1658, a Swedish army marched across the ice to invade Copenhagen. By the end of the 17th century, famines had spread from northern France, across Norway and Sweden, to Finland and Estonia.

Reflecting its global scope, evidence of the Little Ice Age appears in the Southern Hemisphere as well. Sediment cores from Lake Malawi in southern Africa show colder weather from 1570 to 1820. A 3,000 year temperature reconstruction based on varying rates of stalagmite growth in a cave in South Africa also indicates a colder period from 1500 to 1800. A 1997 study comparing West Antarctic ice cores with the results of the Greenland Ice Sheet Project Two (GISP2) indicate a global Little Ice Age affecting the two ice sheets in tandem.

The Siple Dome, an ice dome roughly 100 km long and 100 km wide, about 100 km east of the Siple Coast of Antartica, also reflects effects of the Little Ice Age synchronously with the GISP2 record, as do sediment cores from the Bransfield Basin of the Antarctic Peninsula. Oxygen/isotope analysis from the Pacific Islands indicates a 1.5 degree Celsius temperature decline between 1270 and 1475 A.D.

The Franz Josef glacier on the west side of the Southern Alps of New Zealand advanced sharply during the period of the Little Ice Age, actually invading a rain forest at its maximum extent in the early 1700s. The Mueller glacier on the east side of New Zealand’s Southern Alps expanded to its maximum extent at roughly the same time.

Ice cores from the Andeas mountains in South America show a colder period from 1600 to 1800. Tree ring data from Patagonia in South America show cold periods from 1270 to 1380 and from 1520 to 1670. Spanish explorers noted the expansion of the San Rafael Glacier in Chile from 1675 to 1766, which continued into the 19th century.

The height of the Little Ice Age is generally dated as 1650 to 1850 A.D. The American Revolutionary Army under General George Washington shivered at Valley Forge in the winter of 1777-78, and New York harbor was frozen in the winter of 1780. Historic snowstorms struck Lisbon, Portugal in 1665, 1744 and 1886. Glaciers in Glacier National Park in Montana advanced until the late 18th or early 19th centuries. The last River Thames Frost Fair was held in 1814. The Little Ice Age phased out during the middle to late 19th century.

The Little Ice Age, following the historically warm temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period, which lasted from about AD 950 to 1250, has been attributed to natural cycles in solar activity, particularly sunspots. A period of sharply lower sunspot activity known as the Wolf Minimum began in 1280 and persisted for 70 years until 1350. That was followed by a period of even lower sunspot activity that lasted 90 years from 1460 to 1550 known as the Sporer Minimum. During the period 1645 to 1715, the low point of the Little Ice Age, the number of sunspots declined to zero for the entire time. This is known as the Maunder Minimum, named after English astronomer Walter Maunder. That was followed by the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830, another period of well below normal sunspot activity.

The increase in global temperatures since the late 19th century just reflects the end of the Little Ice Age. The global temperature trends since then have followed not rising CO2 trends but the ocean temperature cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Every 20 to 30 years, the much colder water near the bottom of the oceans cycles up to the top, where it has a slight cooling effect on global temperatures until the sun warms that water. That warmed water then contributes to slightly warmer global temperatures, until the next churning cycle.

Those ocean temperature cycles, and the continued recovery from the Little Ice Age, are primarily why global temperatures rose from 1915 until 1945, when CO2 emissions were much lower than in recent years. The change to a cold ocean temperature cycle, primarily the PDO, is the main reason that global temperatures declined from 1945 until the late 1970s, despite the soaring CO2 emissions during that time from the postwar industrialization spreading across the globe.

The 20 to 30 year ocean temperature cycles turned back to warm from the late 1970s until the late 1990s, which is the primary reason that global temperatures warmed during this period. But that warming ended 15 years ago, and global temperatures have stopped increasing since then, if not actually cooled, even though global CO2 emissions have soared over this period. As The Economist magazine reported in March, “The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.” Yet, still no warming during that time. That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes.

At first the current stall out of global warming was due to the ocean cycles turning back to cold. But something much more ominous has developed over this period. Sunspots run in 11 year short term cycles, with longer cyclical trends of 90 and even 200 years. The number of sunspots declined substantially in the last 11 year cycle, after flattening out over the previous 20 years. But in the current cycle, sunspot activity has collapsed. NASA’s Science News report for January 8, 2013 states,

“Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 [the current short term 11 year cycle] is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion.”

That is even more significant because NASA’s climate science has been controlled for years by global warming hysteric James Hansen, who recently announced his retirement.

But this same concern is increasingly being echoed worldwide. The Voice of Russia reported on April 22, 2013,

“Global warming which has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, may give way to global cooling. According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is waning, so the average yearly temperature will begin to decline as well. Scientists from Britain and the US chime in saying that forecasts for global cooling are far from groundless.”

That report quoted Yuri Nagovitsyn of the Pulkovo Observatory saying, “Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesn’t bring about considerable climate change – only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater – up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years.” In other words, another Little Ice Age.

The German Herald reported on March 31, 2013,

“German meteorologists say that the start of 2013 is now the coldest in 208 years – and now German media has quoted Russian scientist Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov from the St. Petersburg Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory [saying this] is proof as he said earlier that we are heading for a “Mini Ice Age.” Talking to German media the scientist who first made his prediction in 2005 said that after studying sunspots and their relationship with climate change on Earth, we are now on an ‘unavoidable advance towards a deep temperature drop.’”

Faith in Global Warming is collapsing in formerly staunch Europe following increasingly severe winters which have now started continuing into spring. Christopher Booker explained in The Sunday Telegraph on April 27, 2013,

“Here in Britain, where we had our fifth freezing winter in a row, the Central England Temperature record – according to an expert analysis on the US science blog Watts Up With That – shows that in this century, average winter temperatures have dropped by 1.45C, more than twice as much as their rise between 1850 and 1999, and twice as much as the entire net rise in global temperatures recorded in the 20th century.”

A news report from India (The Hindu April 22, 2013) stated, “March in Russia saw the harshest frosts in 50 years, with temperatures dropping to –25° Celsius in central parts of the country and –45° in the north. It was the coldest spring month in Moscow in half a century….Weathermen say spring is a full month behind schedule in Russia.” The news report summarized,

“Russia is famous for its biting frosts but this year, abnormally icy weather also hit much of Europe, the United States, China and India. Record snowfalls brought Kiev, capital of Ukraine, to a standstill for several days in late March, closed roads across many parts of Britain, buried thousands of sheep beneath six-metre deep snowdrifts in Northern Ireland, and left more than 1,000,000 homes without electricity in Poland. British authorities said March was the second coldest in its records dating back to 1910. China experienced the severest winter weather in 30 years and New Delhi in January recorded the lowest temperature in 44 years.”

Booker adds, “Last week it was reported that 3,318 places in the USA had recorded their lowest temperatures for this time of year since records began. Similar record cold was experienced by places in every province of Canada. So cold has the Russian winter been that Moscow had its deepest snowfall in 134 years of observations.”

Britain’s Met Office, an international cheerleading headquarters for global warming hysteria, did concede last December that there would be no further warming at least through 2017, which would make 20 years with no global warming. That reflects grudging recognition of the newly developing trends. But that reflects as well growing divergence between the reality of real world temperatures and the projections of the climate models at the foundation of the global warming alarmism of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Since those models have never been validated, they are not science at this point, but just made up fantasies. That is why, “In the 12 years to 2011, 11 out of 12 [global temperature]forecasts [of the Met Office] were too high — and… none were colder than [resulted],” as BBC climate correspondent Paul Hudson wrote in January.

Global warming was never going to be the problem that the Lysenkoists who have brought down western science made it out to be. Human emissions of CO2 are only 4 to 5% of total global emissions, counting natural causes. Much was made of the total atmospheric concentration of CO2 exceeding 400 parts per million. But if you asked the daffy NBC correspondent who hysterically reported on that what portion of the atmosphere 400 parts per million is, she transparently wouldn’t be able to tell you. One percent of the atmosphere would be 10,000 parts per million. The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 deep in the geologic past were much, much greater than today, yet life survived, and we have no record of any of the catastrophes the hysterics have claimed. Maybe that is because the temperature impact of increased concentrations of CO2 declines logarithmically. That means there is a natural limit to how much increased CO2 can effectively warm the planet, which would be well before any of the supposed climate catastrophes the warming hysterics have tried to use to shut down capitalist prosperity.

Yet, just last week, there was Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson telling us, by way of attempting to tutor Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, “For the record, and for the umpteenth time, there is no ‘great amount of uncertainty’ about whether the planet is warming and why.” If you can read, and you have gotten this far in my column, you know why Robinson’s ignorance is just another Washington Post abuse of the First Amendment. Mr. Robinson, let me introduce you to the British Met Office, stalwart of Global Warming “science,” such as it is, which has already publicly confessed that we are already three quarters through 20 years of No Global Warming!

Booker could have been writing about Robinson when he concluded his Sunday Telegraph commentary by writing, “Has there ever in history been such an almighty disconnect between observable reality and the delusions of a political class that is quite impervious to any rational discussion?”

But there is a fundamental problem with the temperature records from this contentious period, when climate science crashed into political science. The land based records, which have been under the control of global warming alarmists at the British Met Office and the Hadley Centre Climate Research Unit, and at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the U.S., show much more warming during this period than the incorruptible satellite atmosphere temperature records. Those satellite records have been further confirmed by atmospheric weather balloons. But the land based records can be subject to tampering and falsification.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...bal-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top