SRM/GEOENGINEERING

[foomar]

Please tell me how something that is supposed to save lives, contributes to lowering the population which reduces Co2 according to him. You cant give vaccines to people who are not yet born and the reduced birth rate is only part of his goal. And like you stated before in the poorer countries the elderly need their children to take care of them otherwise they die.

Vaccination is just part of a package of funded interventions and locally driven innitiatives , for every death from preventable desease there are many left damaged for life.
Improved health care , clean water , sanitation and education raise people out of a cycle of poverty , allowing most to survive into adulthood.
The best way to help is to raise their standard of liveing , all these factors need to be adressed together.
Without family planning the population rises too fast and the poor stay poor with more pressure on resources , inheritance breaks up land into smaller packets that limit food.
Abortion has a long history in rural India , a massive dose of neem has been the common method for centuries.

If you want to discuss abortion issues i suggest you start another thread.


Thenewamerican is a mouthpiece of the the John Birch group , whose "patriot" agenda is as biased and right wing as AJ and pro-life with a nasty religious undertone.

Many of our articles expose media deception and political coverup, and warn against those forces, both inside and outside of government, seeking to consolidate political and economic power nationally and internationally. Such exposures can and do help concerned Americans to safeguard their liberties. Other articles examine the goodness of America and the greatness of our founding principles and offer realistic hope that America can be saved.

Many of the facts in their articles are simply not true.

According to a government report cited by the U.K. Guardian, some 500,000 Indians were sterilized in 2008 alone. Experts say the true figure is much higher. About half of India’s 26 state governments, meanwhile, have reportedly already achieved compliance with a controversial UN dictate seeking to restrict population to two children per mother. And a “National Family Health Survey” cited by the Global Post reported that some 37 percent of Indian women have undergone sterilization so far. The rest are apparently still in the crosshairs.

 

[sprinkl]

OMG you anti-conspiracy TROLLS!
If you believe the world is going to hell because of individual people you are dead wrong and brainwashed by the media and crappy education.
The world is controlled by politics and there is no such thing as real democracy, the world would not be how it is today. Money controls politics and most money is concentrated in a pct of the population. This is fact and any average joe on the street realizes this.

But here's the thing most people are too stupid or scared to acknowledge, because they would be seen as nutty, otherwise thinking conspiracists.
If poor, unschooled factory workers can have unions that fight for their rights and powers, why on earth wouldnt the ultra rich have such groups?
I'm sorry but if you can't wrap your mind around this you must have an iq-deficiency. Working people actually conspire to get a better pay and working conditions, i know this must be shocking, but its in the media so it must be true, right.
Go watch the matrix a few times and maybe you will realize not only nutjob websites think about the world this way.

And on vaccines: a lot of studies have proven devastating effects of these bogus meds. And we should all know by now that 90% the pharmaceutical industry puts out is bs, side effect creating poisons. Just look around in hospitals and old people homes. People are being poisoned and society works to pay for this!
God damnit people, get a grip!

 

[dddaver]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"If poor, unschooled factory workers can have unions that fight for their rights and powers, why on earth wouldnt the ultra rich have such groups?"

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]You gotta be joking, or maybe you are being sarcastic, right? Simple really, because the ultra rich are a vast, vast minority.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Your statement's not even close to reality.

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Please try to tone down[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]the offensive nature of your words. That was difficult to read only because you call everybody an idiot if they don't agree with you. If you want anybody to consider your words it might be better not being quite so offensive.
[/FONT]

 

[foomar]

And on vaccines: a lot of studies have proven devastating effects of these bogus meds. And we should all know by now that 90% the pharmaceutical industry puts out is bs, side effect creating poisons. Just look around in hospitals and old people homes. People are being poisoned and society works to pay for this!
God damnit people, get a grip!

Take a look around an old graveyard and see how many children died from diseases now prevented by vaccination.
The opposition to vaccines seems to come from people with no experience of life before them , three of my siblings were lost to preventable disease.

Explore your own family history or ask your grandparents what it was like.

Smallpox is gone and polio on the way out , and with research malaria ,TB and HIV should be next.

 

[bentom187]

Vaccination is just part of a package of funded interventions and locally driven innitiatives , for every death from preventable desease there are many left damaged for life.
Improved health care , clean water , sanitation and education raise people out of a cycle of poverty , allowing most to survive into adulthood.
The best way to help is to raise their standard of liveing , all these factors need to be adressed together..

Well we agree on raising their standard of living,perhaps not on how a particular population should go about it. My solution in any case is and always will be more freedom for the individual, economic and otherwise.

Also you are not addressing the inconsistent stance Bill has on population reduction via vaccines as well.

Without family planning the population rises too fast and the poor stay poor with more pressure on resources .

They have resources, and then there is commerce in which to get goods from other countries. Their population is bigger but they have more resources too.
Africa.
30.2 million km² (11.7 million sq mi)
US.
At 3.79 million square miles (9.83 million km2)

The poor stay poor because of economic restraints and war and foreign aid going into the dictatorial leaders of each country not the actual poor. Not because of a lack of resources in most cases ,im aware there are large deserts there.

Im sure education plays a part of "family planning" but perhaps circumstances necessitate large families. They know whats best. China has family planning too ,the one child policy. Its F'ed up to say the least.

Abortion has a long history in rural India , a massive dose of neem has been the common method for centuries.

If you want to discuss abortion issues i suggest you start another thread...

It just so happens the eugenics or family planning is part of the global warming agenda and "sustainability" that Gates proposes. So its on topic.

Look at the history of family planning in America, its not good here and its not good elsewhere .
Margaret Sanger

Here are a few quotes.

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people
On sterilization & racial purification:
Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

On the right of married couples to bear children:
Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." Birth Control Review, April 1932

On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:
"This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in the solution of marriage problems... Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable - these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation." Margaret Sanger, Happiness in Marriage (Bretano's, New York, 1927)

On the extermination of blacks:
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

On respecting the rights of the mentally ill:
In her "Plan for Peace," Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed "feebleminded." Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107

"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

Thenewamerican is a mouthpiece of the the John Birch group , whose "patriot" agenda is as biased and right wing as AJ and pro-life with a nasty religious undertone.Many of the facts in their articles are simply not true.

I could say the same thing about government and progressive agenda driven news as well. My argument is sound you could pull up the sources and follow them to there logical conclusion and find out that they can be correct without associating them with left or right politics.
Im not offended by what people worship, as long as they don't force their ignorance upon me. So until that point ,I don't care.

What's wrong with pro-life (opposing murder) as long as you don't force your will upon people( yourself or through .Gov). I think its sad that people do that to their own children, but I also recognize that they may actually have a medical need in rare circumstances. But in the numbers they are performed in I think there is a economic problem as well as educational and perhaps political one as well.
Im very pro individual meaning everyone has natural rights which should not be violated if we live in a decent, moral ,educated society and even if we don't I think its still wrong to violate peoples rights.
Civil rights are not rights because they are given, they are privileges, provided by the.Gov through force and coercion.

If I don't want it done to me, I just don't do it to others. I wish the rest of society was eager to follow the same principal.

If we go around solving problems that are not problems ,we could end up doing a lot more damage than good.

Richard Feynman and Pseudoscience
[YOUTUBEIF]HtMX_0jDsrw[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[trichrider]

The MSDS for that jet fuel...

The water in a contrail comes from combustion , not any tiny amount in the fuel itself.

The fact is that the combustion of a tonne of aviation fuel will produce a tonne of water when it is burnt , same process as the petrol engine in your car.

At ground level you see it as steam or water dribbling from your car exhaust , at 30 000 feet and temps of -40 c it becomes ice crystals.

not hardly.
my calculations indicate different.
a 737 engine consumes 117 lbs per minute. 2 engines, 234 lbs.
only 30% is water vapor, or approx. 70 lbs per muinute equating to 210 lbs spread across 30 miles from horizon to horizon...roughly equal to a gallon per mile.

a persons exhalations are near identical to jet exhaust (co2 and water vapor) yet they don't linger in the air and spread to form fog.

Most of the people believe in conspiracies because it makes them feel special , or are making money from it.

If you apply common sense and a scientific critique they fall apart.

oh I feel special alright. not because I believe in conspiracies but because those conspiracies explain current and past and put them into context that's recognizable and cognizant.

Probably from breathing in carbon particulates from car exhausts in the developing world , along with poor diet and exposure to petrochemicals from plastics.

The catchment area for my water supply is under the flightpaths from two international airports , levels of aluminium and barium are unchanged.

Those who base their belief's on infowars and youtube videos are the real mugs , reinforcing each others errant conclusions , its almost a religion.

please post the results of analysis for us mugs to examine...

When it comes to this subject you are preaching to the converted , the entire world economy is based on an unsustainable lie since at least the industrial revolution.

But I feel the chemtrail issue and most other CT,s to be no more than an orchestrated attempt to distract from the real issues...

Too many get embroiled in the wrong problems and never move beyond them , the proponents are the real disinfo.

yes, you're doing your best.

That's the first thing you have posted that's true , though its ice crystals at that altitude.

You can post them on a chem site and be a hero.

The first one might drift into a star of david , those pesky Jews are at it again.

if I cannot determine chemtrail constituents then neither can you.
jus' sayin'. please keep racism outta here...

Just a few of hundreds of grants , guess he must be truly evil to try and improve the lives of so many people rather than squander money like an Arab prince.

The foundation is not perfect and makes mistakes , but you don't look a gifthorse in the mouth when nobody else is going to fund research.

more purchased science from a major proponent of eugenics.

Its the unsubstantiated crap you find on infowars and other alex jones sites saying that vaccines and gm food is a method of directly reducing fertility in third world countries by poisoning people , where bentom and trichy get most of their crazy ideas from.

The US has a history of real eugenics only exceeded by Nazi Germany.

i'm sorry? I've posted exactly once of Alex Jones. i'm not crazy, especially for alex, he's a talking head but has better facts than you.

Vaccination is just part of a package of funded interventions and locally driven innitiatives , for every death from preventable desease there are many left damaged for life.
Improved health care , clean water , sanitation and education raise people out of a cycle of poverty , allowing most to survive into adulthood.
The best way to help is to raise their standard of liveing , all these factors need to be adressed together.
Without family planning the population rises too fast and the poor stay poor with more pressure on resources , inheritance breaks up land into smaller packets that limit food.
Abortion has a long history in rural India , a massive dose of neem has been the common method for centuries.

If you want to discuss abortion issues i suggest you start another thread.


Thenewamerican is a mouthpiece of the the John Birch group , whose "patriot" agenda is as biased and right wing as AJ and pro-life with a nasty religious undertone.



Many of the facts in their articles are simply not true.

why don't you start another thread? abortion and eugenics are fair game here. why don't you visit john birch dot com and rag on their nasty religious undertones?

your cult of deception is crumbling.



...and now back to our regularly scheduled program.

1. The Truth About Greenhouse Gases
2. The dubious science of the climate crusaders.by William HapperJune 2011
   
3. The object of the Author in the following pages has been to collect the most remarkable instances of those moral epidemics which have been excited, sometimes by one cause and sometimes by another, and to show how easily the masses have been led astray, and how imitative and gregarious men are, even in their infatuations and crimes,” wrote Charles Mackay in the preface to the first edition of his Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds . I want to discuss a contemporary moral epidemic: the notion that increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, will have disastrous consequences for mankind and for the planet. The “climate crusade” is one characterized by true believers, opportunists, cynics, money-hungry governments, manipulators of various types”even children’s crusades”all based on contested science and dubious claims.
   
   I am a strong supporter of a clean environment. We need to be vigilant to keep our land, air, and waters free of real pollution, particulates, heavy metals, and pathogens, but carbon dioxide (CO2 ) is not one of these pollutants. Carbon is the stuff of life. Our bodies are made of carbon. A normal human exhales around 1 kg of CO2 (the simplest chemically stable molecule of carbon in the earth’s atmosphere) per day. Before the industrial period, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 270 ppm. At the present time, the concentration is about 390 ppm, 0.039 percent of all atmospheric molecules and less than 1 percent of that in our breath. About fifty million years ago, a brief moment in the long history of life on earth, geological evidence indicates, CO2 levels were several thousand ppm, much higher than now. And life flourished abundantly.
   
   Now the Environmental Protection Agency wants to regulate atmospheric CO2 as a “pollutant.” According to my Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary , to pollute is “to make or render unclean, to defile, to desecrate, to profane.” By breathing are we rendering the air unclean, defiling or desecrating it? Efforts are underway to remedy the old-fashioned, restrictive definition of pollution. The current Wikipedia entry on air pollution, for example, now asserts that pollution includes: “carbon dioxide (CO2)”a colorless, odorless, non-toxic greenhouse gas associated with ocean acidification, emitted from sources such as combustion, cement production, and respiration.”
   
   As far as green plants are concerned, CO2 is not a pollutant, but part of their daily bread”like water, sunlight, nitrogen, and other essential elements. Most green plants evolved at CO2 levels of several thousand ppm, many times higher than now. Plants grow better and have better flowers and fruit at higher levels. Commercial greenhouse operators recognize this when they artificially increase the concentrations inside their greenhouses to over 1000 ppm.
   
   Wallis Simpson, the woman for whom King Edward VIII renounced the British throne, supposedly said, “A woman can’t be too rich or too thin.” But in reality, you can get too much or too little of a good thing. Whether we should be glad or worried about increasing levels of CO2 depends on quantitative numbers, not just qualitative considerations.
   
   How close is the current atmosphere to the upper or lower limit for CO2? Did we have just the right concentration at the preindustrial level of 270 ppm? Reading breathless media reports about CO2 “pollution” and about minimizing our carbon footprints, one might think that the earth cannot have too little CO2, as Simpson thought one couldn’t be too thin”a view which was also overstated, as we have seen from the sad effects of anorexia in so many young women. Various geo-engineering schemes are being discussed for scrubbing CO2 from the air and cleansing the atmosphere of the “pollutant.” There is no lower limit for human beings, but there is for human life. We would be perfectly healthy in a world with little or no atmospheric CO2”except that we would have nothing to eat and a few other minor inconveniences, because most plants stop growing if the levels drop much below 150 ppm. If we want to continue to be fed and clothed by the products of green plants, we can have too little CO2.
   
   The minimum acceptable value for plants is not that much below the 270 ppm preindustrial value. It is possible that this is not enough, that we are better off with our current level, and would be better off with more still. There is evidence that California orange groves are about 30 percent more productive today than they were 150 years ago because of the increase of atmospheric CO2.
   
   Although human beings and many other animals would do well with no CO2 at all in the air, there is an upper limit that we can tolerate. Inhaling air with a concentration of a few percent, similar to the concentration of the air we exhale, hinders the diffusional exchange of CO2 between the blood and gas in the lung. Both the United States Navy (for submariners) and nasa (for astronauts) have performed extensive studies of human tolerance to CO2. As a result of these studies, the Navy recommends an upper limit of about 8000 ppm for cruises of ninety days, and nasa recommends an upper limit of 5000 ppm for missions of one thousand days, both assuming a total pressure of one atmosphere. Higher levels are acceptable for missions of only a few days.
   
   We conclude that atmospheric CO2 levels should be above 150 ppm to avoid harming green plants and below about 5000 ppm to avoid harming people. That is a very wide range, and our atmosphere is much closer to the lower end than to the upper end. The current rate of burning fossil fuels adds about 2 ppm per year to the atmosphere, so that getting from the current level to 1000 ppm would take about 300 years”and 1000 ppm is still less than what most plants would prefer, and much less than either the nasa or the Navy limit for human beings.
   
   Yet there are strident calls for immediately stopping further increases in CO2 levels and reducing the current level. As we have discussed, animals would not even notice a doubling of CO2 and plants would love it. The supposed reason for limiting it is to stop global warming”or, since the predicted warming has failed to be nearly as large as computer models forecast, to stop climate change. Climate change itself has been embarrassingly uneventful, so another rationale for reducing CO2 is now promoted: to stop the hypothetical increase of extreme climate events like hurricanes or tornados. But this does not necessarily follow. The frequency of extreme events has either not changed or has decreased in the 150 years that CO2 levels have increased from 270 to 390 ppm.
   
   Let me turn to some of the problems the non-pollutant CO2 is supposed to cause. More CO2 is supposed to cause flooded cities, parched agriculture, tropical diseases in Alaska, etc., and even an epidemic of kidney stones. It does indeed cause some warming of our planet, and we should thank Providence for that, because without the greenhouse warming of CO2 and its more potent partners, water vapor and clouds, the earth would be too cold to sustain its current abundance of life.
   
   Other things being equal, more CO2 will cause more warming. The question is how much warming, and whether the increased CO2 and the warming it causes will be good or bad for the planet.
   
   The argument starts something like this. CO2 levels have increased from about 280 ppm to 390 ppm over the past 150 years or so, and the earth has warmed by about 0.8 degree Celsius during that time. Therefore the warming is due to CO2. But correlation is not causation. Roosters crow every morning at sunrise, but that does not mean the rooster caused the sun to rise. The sun will still rise on Monday if you decide to have the rooster for Sunday dinner.
   
   There have been many warmings and coolings in the past when the CO2 levels did not change. A well-known example is the medieval warming, about the year 1000, when the Vikings settled Greenland (when it was green) and wine was exported from England. This warm period was followed by the “little ice age” when the Thames would frequently freeze over during the winter. There is no evidence for significant increase of CO2 in the medieval warm period, nor for a significant decrease at the time of the subsequent little ice age. Documented famines with millions of deaths occurred during the little ice age because the cold weather killed the crops. Since the end of the little ice age, the earth has been warming in fits and starts, and humanity’s quality of life has improved accordingly.
   
   A rare case of good correlation between CO2 levels and temperature is provided by ice-core records of the cycles of glacial and interglacial periods of the last million years of so. But these records show that changes in temperature preceded changes in CO2 levels, so that the levels were an effect of temperature changes. This was probably due to outgassing of CO2 from the warming oceans and the reverse effect when they cooled.
   
   The most recent continental ice sheets began to melt some twenty thousand years ago. During the “Younger Dryas” some 12,000 years ago, the earth very dramatically cooled and warmed by as much as 10 degrees Celsius in fifty years.
   
   The earth’s climate has always been changing. Our present global warming is not at all unusual by the standards of geological history, and it is probably benefiting the biosphere. Indeed, there is very little correlation between the estimates of CO2 and of the earth’s temperature over the past 550 million years (the “Phanerozoic” period). The message is clear that several factors must influence the earth’s temperature, and that while CO2 is one of these factors, it is seldom the dominant one. The other factors are not well understood. Plausible candidates are spontaneous variations of the complicated fluid flow patterns in the oceans and atmosphere of the earth”perhaps influenced by continental drift, volcanoes, variations of the earth’s orbital parameters (ellipticity, spin-axis orientation, etc.), asteroid and comet impacts, variations in the sun’s output (not only the visible radiation but the amount of ultraviolet light, and the solar wind with its magnetic field), variations in cosmic rays leading to variations in cloud cover, and other causes.
   
   The existence of the little ice age and the medieval warm period were an embarrassment to the global-warming establishment, because they showed that the current warming is almost indistinguishable from previous warmings and coolings that had nothing to do with burning fossil fuel. The organization charged with producing scientific support for the climate change crusade, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), finally found a solution. They rewrote the climate history of the past 1000 years with the celebrated “hockey stick” temperature record.
   
   The first IPCC report, issued in 1990, showed both the medieval warm period and the little ice age very clearly. In the IPCC’s 2001 report was a graph that purported to show the earth’s mean temperature since the year 1000. A yet more extreme version of the hockey stick graph made the cover of the Fiftieth Anniversary Report of the United Nation’s World Meteorological Organization. To the surprise of everyone who knew about the strong evidence for the little ice age and the medieval climate optimum, the graph showed a nearly constant temperature from the year 1000 until about 150 years ago, when the temperature began to rise abruptly like the blade of a hockey stick. The inference was that this was due to the anthropogenic “pollutant” CO2.
   
   This damnatia memoriae of inconvenient facts was simply expunged from the 2001 IPCC report, much as Trotsky and Yezhov were removed from Stalin’s photographs by dark-room specialists in the later years of the dictator’s reign. There was no explanation of why both the medieval warm period and the little ice age, very clearly shown in the 1990 report, had simply disappeared eleven years later.
   
   The IPCC and its worshipful supporters did their best to promote the hockey-stick temperature curve. But as John Adams remarked, “Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” The hockey-stick curve caught the attention of two Canadians, Steve McIntyre, a mining consultant, and an academic statistician, Ross McKitrick. As they began to look more carefully at the original data”much of it from tree rings”and at the analysis that led to the hockey stick, they became more and more puzzled. By hard, remarkably detailed, and persistent work over many years, consistently frustrated in their efforts to obtain original data and data-analysis methods, they showed that the hockey stick was not supported by observational data. An excellent, recent history of this episode is A. W. Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion .
   
   About the time of the Copenhagen Climate Conference in the fall of 2009, another nasty thing happened to the global-warming establishment. A Russian server released large numbers of e-mails and other files from computers of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia. Among the files released were e-mails between members of the power structure of the climate crusade, “the team.” These files were, or should have been, very embarrassing to their senders and recipients. A senior scientist from CRU wrote, for example: “PS, I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a freedom of information act.”
   
   A traditional way to maintain integrity in science is through peer review, the anonymous examination of a scientific paper by qualified, competing scientists before publication. In a responsible peer review, the authors may be required to make substantial revisions to correct any flaws in the science or methodology before their paper is published. But peer review has largely failed in climate science. Global warming alarmists have something like Gadaffi’s initial air superiority over rag-tag opponents in Libya.
   
   Consider this comment from one of the most respected IPCC leaders, as revealed in the CRU e-mails: “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 define what the peer-review literature is.” And consider the CRU e-mail comment on a journal that committed the mortal sin of publishing one of the heretical papers: “I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.” Peer review in climate science means that the “team” recommends publication of each other’s work, and tries to keep any off-message paper from being accepted for publication.
   
   James Madison reminds us in The Federalist Papers that “no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time.” Madison goes on to observe that the smaller the community, the more likely that parties and judges will be one and the same.
   
   Let me summarize how the key issues appear to me, a working scientist with a better background than most in the physics of climate. CO2 really is a greenhouse gas and other things being equal, adding the gas to the atmosphere by burning coal, oil, and natural gas will modestly increase the surface temperature of the earth. Other things being equal, doubling the CO2 concentration, from our current 390 ppm to 780 ppm will directly cause about 1 degree Celsius in warming. At the current rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere”about 2 ppm per year”it would take about 195 years to achieve this doubling. The combination of a slightly warmer earth and more CO2 will greatly increase the production of food, wood, fiber, and other products by green plants, so the increase will be good for the planet, and will easily outweigh any negative effects. Supposed calamities like the accelerated rise of sea level, ocean acidification, more extreme climate, tropical diseases near the poles, and so on are greatly exaggerated.
   
   “Mitigation” and control efforts that have been proposed will enrich a favored few with good political ties”at the expense of the great majority of mankind, including especially the poor and the citizens of developing nations. These efforts will make almost no change in earth’s temperature. Spain’s recent experiment with green energy destroyed several pre-existing jobs for every green job it created, and it nearly brought the country to bankruptcy.
   
   The frightening warnings that alarmists offer about the effects of doubling CO2 are based on computer models that assume that the direct warming effect of CO2 is multiplied by a large “feedback factor” from CO2-induced changes in water vapor and clouds, which supposedly contribute much more to the greenhouse warming of the earth than CO2. But there is observational evidence that the feedback factor is small and may even be negative. The models are not in good agreement with observations”even if they appear to fit the temperature rise over the last 150 years very well.
   
   Indeed, the computer programs that produce climate change models have been “tuned” to get the desired answer. The values of various parameters like clouds and the concentrations of anthropogenic aerosols are adjusted to get the best fit to observations. And”perhaps partly because of that”they have been unsuccessful in predicting future climate, even over periods as short as fifteen years. In fact, the real values of most parameters, and the physics of how they affect the earth’s climate, are in most cases only roughly known, too roughly to supply accurate enough data for computer predictions. In my judgment, and in that of many other scientists familiar with the issues, the main problem with models has been their treatment of clouds, changes of which probably have a much bigger effect on the temperature of the earth than changing levels of CO2.
   
   What, besides the bias toward a particular result, is wrong with the science? Scientific progress proceeds by the interplay of theory and observation. Theory explains observations and makes predictions about what will be observed in the future. Observations anchor our understanding and weed out the theories that don’t work. This has been the scientific method for more than three hundred years. Recently, the advent of the computer has made possible another branch of inquiry: computer simulation models. Properly used, computer models can enhance and speed up scientific progress. But they are not meant to replace theory and observation and to serve as an authority of their own. We know they fail in economics. All of the proposed controls that would have such a significant impact on the world’s economic future are based on computer models that are so complex and chaotic that many runs are needed before we can get an “average” answer. Yet the models have failed the simple scientific test of prediction. We don’t even have a theory for how accurate the models should be.
   
   There are many honest, hardworking climate scientists who are trying to understand the effects of CO2 on climate, but their work has fallen under suspicion because of the hockey-stick scandal and many other exaggerations about the dangers of increasing CO2. What has transformed climate science from a normal intellectual discipline to a matter of so much controversy?
   
   A major problem has been the co-opting of climate science by politics, ambition, greed, and what seems to be a hereditary human need for a righteous cause. What better cause than saving the planet? Especially if one can get ample, secure funding at the same time? Huge amounts of money are available from governments and wealthy foundations for climate institutes and for climate-related research.
   
   Funding for climate studies is second only to funding for biological sciences. Large academic empires, prizes, elections to honorary societies, fellowships, and other perquisites go to those researchers whose results may help “save the planet.” Every day we read about some real or contrived environmental or ecological effect “proven” to arise from global warming. The total of such claimed effects now runs in the hundreds, all the alleged result of an unexceptional century-long warming of less than 1 degree Celsius. Government subsidies, loan guarantees, and captive customers go to green companies. Carbon-tax revenues flow to governments. As the great Russian poet Pushkin said in his novella Dubrovsky , “If there happens to be a trough, there will be pigs.” Any doubt about apocalyptic climate scenarios could remove many troughs.
   
   What about those who doubt the scientific basis of these claims, or who simply don’t like what is being done to the scientific method they were taught to apply and uphold? Publications of contrary research results in mainstream journals are rare. The occasional heretical article is the result of an inevitable, protracted battle with those who support the dogma and who have their hands on the scales of peer review. As mentioned above, we know from the Climategate emails that the team conspired to prevent contrary publications from seeing the light of day and even discussed getting rid of an editor who seemed to be inclined to admit such contentious material.
   
   Skeptics’ motives are publicly impugned; denigrating names are used routinely in media reports and the blogosphere; and we now see attempts to use the same tactics that Big Brother applied to the skeptical hero, Winston Smith, in Orwell’s 1984 . In 2009 a conference of “ecopsychologists” was held at the University of West England to discuss the obvious psychological problems resident in those who do not adhere to the global warming dogma. The premise of these psychologists was that scientists and members of the general population who express objective doubt about the propagated view of global warming are suffering from a kind of mental illness. We know from the Soviet experience that a society can find it easy to consider dissidents to be mentally deranged and act accordingly.
   
   The management of most scientific societies has enthusiastically signed on to the global warming bandwagon. This is not surprising, since governments, as well as many states and foundations, generously fund those who reinforce their desired outcomes under the cover of saving the planet. Certain private industries are also involved: those positioned to profit from enacted controls as well as financial institutions heavily invested in “green technologies” whose rationale disappears the moment global warming is widely understood to be a non-problem. There are known connections and movements of people involved in government policy, scientific societies, and private industry, all with the common thread of influencing the outcome of a set of programs and investments underpinned by the supposed threat of global warming.
   
   My own trade union, the American Physical Society (APS), is a good example, but hardly the worst. An APS Council statement issued on November 18, 2007 states: “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security, and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.” This is pretty strong language for physicists, for whom skepticism about evidence was once considered a virtue, and nothing was incontrovertible.
   
   In the fall of 2009 a petition, organized by Fellow of the American Physical Society, Roger Cohen, and containing the signatures of hundreds of distinguished APS members was presented to the APS management with a request that at least the truly embarrassing word “incontrovertible” be taken out of the statement. The APS management’s response was to threaten the petitioners, while grudgingly appointing a committee to consider the request. It was exactly what James Madison warned against. The committee included members whose careers depended on global warming alarmism, and the predictable result was that not one word was changed. Bad as the actions of the APS were, they were far better than those of most other scientific societies, which refused to even reconsider extreme statements on climate.
   
   The situation is even more lamentable for the general public, which is fed a constant stream of propaganda by specialists in environmental issues from the mainstream media and well-funded alarmist blogs. Not unlike functionaries of Orwell’s Ministry of Truth in 1984 , with its motto “Ignorance is Strength,” many members of the environmental news media dutifully and uncritically promote the party line of the climate crusade.
   
   However, the situation is slowly getting better. Skeptics are more numerous and better organized than before. In a few cases, leading former adherents have publicly and courageously spoken out against the dogma and its core of establishment promoters. The IPCC itself has come under severe criticism by the international scientific establishment for its series of bizarre errors and organizational failings. Under pressure from a dissident group of Fellows, the Royal Society moved to meaningfully moderate its former radically alarmist position on global warming. And perhaps most important of all, public skepticism has increased significantly, and with it has come a major drop in support of the climate crusade’s attempt to seize control of the “pollutant,” CO2.
   
   I began with a quotation from the preface of the first edition of Mackay’s Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds , and it is worth recalling now a quotation from the preface of the second edition: “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.”
   
   In our efforts to conserve the created world, we should not concentrate our efforts on CO2. We should instead focus on issues like damage to local landscapes and waterways by strip mining, inadequate cleanup, hazards to miners, and the release of real pollutants and poisons like mercury, other heavy metals, and organic carcinogens. Much of the potential harm from coal mining can be eliminated, for example, by requirements that land be restored to a condition that is at least as good as, and preferably better than, when the mining began.
   
   Life is about making decisions, and decisions are about trade-offs. We can choose to promote investment in technology that addresses real problems and scientific research that will let us cope with real problems more efficiently. Or we can be caught up in a crusade that seeks to suppress energy use, economic growth, and the benefits that come from the creation of national wealth.
   
   William Happer is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University.
   

 

[foomar]

a persons exhalations are near identical to jet exhaust (co2 and water vapor) yet they don't linger in the air and spread to form fog.

If you exhaled into saturated air at -40 c they would , carbon particulates also initiate condensation , and people don't breathe them out.

Its basic , simple and proven atmospheric science and you are truly clueless.

The forum would be better off without your tedious conspiratorial contributions and excessive cut and pastes , like when you were recently banned.

 

[foomar]

If you fell for the chemtrail nonsense you are probably well aware of Rosalind Peterson , a founder of California Skywatch and a magor player and promoter of chemtrails.

This is what she now says , equivalent to the pope saying god does not exist.

RP: "In 10 years of research, other than aluminium coated fibreglass, chaff releases by the US military, I have no proof whatsoever that the jets are releasing anything but jet fuel emissions"

I don't have a single solitary verifiable [piece of] evidence that the jets are releasing anything except military releases of aluminium coated fiberglass by military aircraft

In 1995, Rosalind, now retired, became a certified California United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Farm Service Agency Agriculture Crop Loss Adjustor. She worked in more than ten counties throughout California. Many crop losses throughout the State can be attributed to weather related causes. She worked for five years for the Mendocino County Department of Agriculture as an Agriculture Technologist before being hired by the USDA Farm Service Agency in California.

Her experience and degree in Environmental Studies and Planning does add tremendous credibility to her statement that she has found no evidence of chemtrails, and would explain why she hasn't submitted any water or soil samples because she probably knows the results are perfectly normal.

 

[trichrider]

If you fell for the chemtrail nonsense you are probably well aware of Rosalind Peterson , a founder of California Skywatch and a magor player and promoter of chemtrails.

This is what she now says , equivalent to the pope saying god does not exist.



In 1995, Rosalind, now retired, became a certified California United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Farm Service Agency Agriculture Crop Loss Adjustor. She worked in more than ten counties throughout California. Many crop losses throughout the State can be attributed to weather related causes. She worked for five years for the Mendocino County Department of Agriculture as an Agriculture Technologist before being hired by the USDA Farm Service Agency in California.

Her experience and degree in Environmental Studies and Planning does add tremendous credibility to her statement that she has found no evidence of chemtrails, and would explain why she hasn't submitted any water or soil samples because she probably knows the results are perfectly normal.

you're repeating youself...
where are your water analysis results?
bring some substance with your wind...

did you just cut and paste?

saved this up just for me huh? i'm clueless because I don't get your insistence that i'm some sinister purpose...really I could shive a git what your opinion of me happens to entail, that's your business, deal with it.

204 studies on aluminum toxicity:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=aluminum+toxicity

Geoengineering Climate: Technical Evaluation of Selected Approaches

The term “geoengineering” is used to describe deliberate, large-scale manipulations of Earth’s environment that might be used to potentially offset some of the consequences of climate change. Learn more about geoengineering. The concept has gained recent attention as a possible backstop measure if other emissions reduction strategies to are not successful or if climate trends become disruptive enough to warrant extreme measures.
Because geoengineering involves manipulating the climate, it raises some societal and ethical controversies. It also poses potential environmental, economic, and national security concerns. Future decisions should be informed by a through scientific understanding of the techniques being discussed, including what they are, how they would work, the expected risks, and possible consequences (intended and unintended).
http://nas-sites.org/americasclimat...-technical-evaluation-of-selected-approaches/

 

[trichrider]

A New Theory of Climate Change

by Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. *

Introduction

Man-made carbon dioxide is generally thought to produce global warming. However, in a recent article entitled "Does Carbon Dioxide Drive Global Warming?" I presented several major reasons why carbon dioxide is probably not the primary cause.1 But if carbon dioxide is not the cause, then what is? Evidence is accumulating that cosmic rays associated with fluctuations in the sun's electromagnetic field may be what drives global warming. A new theory called cosmoclimatology that proposes a natural mechanism for climate fluctuations has been developed by Henrik Svensmark,2 Head of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Center.

Some History

Edward L. Maunder reported in 1904 that the number of spots on the sun has an 11-year cycle.3 Sunspots can be observed in real time online at www.spaceweather.com. Figure 1 shows a 400-year record of the monthly number of sunspots. Note the low number of sunspots in the period from 1645 to 1715. This period is called the Maunder Minimum4 and coincides with the Little Ice Age, the coldest period of temperature during the last 1,000 years.


For many years, climatologists attempted to correlate the number of sunspots with various climate variables, including temperature and precipitation. By the 1980s these attempts were determined to be futile, because the percentage change in solar heating was found to be insufficient to explain the variations. However, this interest began to increase the connection between cosmic rays and sunspots, carbon-14 in the atmosphere, beryllium-10 on the surface of meteorites, and other processes. In particular, it was found that carbon-14 dating needed to be corrected for fluctuations in cosmic ray flux. Without such adjustments, many carbon-14 dates were inconsistent. The question was raised, could cosmic rays affect other geophysical phenomena as well?

A New Climate Theory

In 1995, Henrik Svensmark discovered a startling connection between the cosmic ray flux from space and cloud cover. He found that when the sun is more active--more sunspots, a stronger magnetic field, larger auroras, stronger solar winds, etc.--fewer cosmic rays strike the earth and cloud cover is reduced, resulting in warmer temperatures. Figure 2 shows the relationship he found between low-level cloud amount derived from satellite data from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project and cosmic ray counts from Climax, Colorado.


It is evident in Figure 2 that for the 22-year period from 1983 to 2005, the average amount of low-level cloud follows the flux of cosmic rays very closely. In fact, Svensmark claims that the correlation coefficient is 0.92, a very high correlation for this type of data. In addition, when looking at various longer periods of record using proxy data for these two variables, he also found good correlations and similar trends. In particular, he suggested that during the Little Ice Age when the sun was inactive, cosmic ray flux from space was high, cloud amount was greater, and global temperatures were cooler. As the sun became more active after 1750, cosmic ray flux decreased, cloud amount decreased, and global temperatures warmed. Svensmark proposed that the global warming we've experienced for the past 150 years is a direct result of an increase in solar activity and attendant warming.

A potential change in cloud cover of 3-4 percent caused by changes in cosmic ray flux is sufficient to explain global temperature changes of several degrees due to the change in the reflectivity of clouds. The reason the variation in direct radiation from the sun was rejected earlier is because it has been found to vary only by a few tenths of a percent. This is insufficient to explain observed global warming.

Experiments on Cloud Condensation Nuclei

These statistical correlations are intriguing, but many critics are skeptical of Svensmark's theory until he can explain the mechanism by which cosmic rays create more clouds. This led him to design a laboratory experiment to demonstrate that cosmic rays produce more cloud nuclei on which cloud droplets can form. In 2007, Svensmark et al published the results of an experiment which confirmed his theory that cosmic rays increase the number of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN).7

Most CCN that nucleate cloud droplets in water clouds near the earth's surface are composed of compounds of sulfuric acid derived from water vapor, sulphur dioxide, and ozone found in the atmosphere over the ocean. Svensmark built a cloud chamber containing these gases to see if CCN can be multiplied when cosmic rays are introduced into this mixture. He found that the cosmic rays ionize molecules in the air, releasing electrons that in turn attach themselves to oxygen molecules and collect other water and sulfur dioxide molecules to form clusters. This process occurs extremely rapidly and many times for each electron. The electrons function as a catalyst to form clusters of molecules that grow and produce sulfuric acid CCN. When the air is lifted by normal meteorological processes, these additional CCN form more dense and widespread clouds because of their greater number.

In addition to the results Svensmark obtained from the experiment above, which he called SKY, he anticipates confirmation of his results in a more complete experiment called CLOUD to be conducted at the CERN laboratory in Geneva, Switzerland. The experiment at CERN was delayed numerous times, but has now been funded and approved for 2010.

Conclusions

Svensmark's theory of cosmoclimatology is now complete. He has discovered a complete chain of events that explains the variations in global temperature that have puzzled climatologists for so many years, and that has now led to an explanation for the recent global warming episode. It starts with cosmic rays coming to earth from exploding supernovas and collisions of remnants of stars with nebula in space. Many of these cosmic rays are shielded from striking the earth by the electromagnetic activity of the sun. When the sun is active, the solar wind prevents cosmic rays from entering the earth's atmosphere by sweeping them around the earth. When the sun is inactive, more of them penetrate the atmosphere. Upon reaching the lower atmosphere where more sulphur dioxide, water vapor, and ozone is present, the cosmic rays ionize the air, releasing electrons that aid in the formation of more CCN and form more dense clouds. This increase in low-cloud amount reflects more solar energy to space, cooling the planet. Variations in electromagnetic activity of the sun and fluctuations in cosmic ray intensity from space result in the periodic warming and cooling of the earth.

Solar-modulated cosmic ray processes successfully explain the recent global warming episode. It would be prudent for the political leadership in the U. S. and the world to look more closely at Svensmark's theory of cosmoclimatology for an explanation of global warming before restructuring our entire economic system to eliminate carbon dioxide. If, in fact, Svensmark is correct, reducing the concentration of carbon dioxide will have little impact, anyway.

References
1.Vardiman, L. 2008. Does Carbon Dioxide Drive Global Warming? Acts & Facts. 37 (10): 10.
2.Svensmark, H. and N. Calder. 2007. The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change. Cambridge, England: Icon Books Limited.
3.Maunder, E. W. 1904. Note on the distribution of Sun-Spots in Heliographic Latitude, 1874-1902. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 64: 747-761.
4.Eddy, J. A. 1976. The Maunder Minimum. Science. 192 (4245): 1189-1202.
5.Robert A. Rohde, www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Sunspot_Numbers_png.
6.Svensmark, H. 2007. Cosmoclimatology: A New Theory Emerges. Astronomy & Geophysics. 48 (1): 1.19.
7.Svensmark, H. et al. 2007. Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions. Proceedings of the Royal Society A. 463 (2078): 385-396.

* Dr. Vardiman is Chair of the Department of Astro/Geophysics.

Cite this article: Vardiman, L. 2008. A New Theory of Climate Change. Acts & Facts. 37 (11): 10.

http://www.icr.org/article/new-theory-climate-change/
=====

More support for Svensmark’s cosmic ray modulation of Earth’s climate hypothesis

Posted on April 10, 2014 by Anthony Watts
There is a new paper in Environmental Research Letters that give additional support to Henrik Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis of climate change on Earth. The idea is basically this: the suns changing magnetic field has an influence on galactic cosmic rays, with a stronger magnetic field deflecting more cosmic rays and a weaker one allowing more into the solar system. The cosmic rays affect cloud formation on Earth by creating condensation nuclei. Here is a simplified block flowchart diagram of the process:

The authors of the the new paper have a similar but more detailed flowchart:



The new paper suggest that changes in the quantity of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) are caused by changes in the cosmic ray flux:

The impact of solar variations on particle formation and cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), a critical step for one of the possible solar indirect climate forcing pathways, is studied here with a global aerosol model optimized for simulating detailed particle formation and growth processes. The effect of temperature change in enhancing the solar cycle CCN signal is investigated for the first time. Our global simulations indicate that a decrease in ionization rate associated with galactic cosmic ray flux change from solar minimum to solar maximum reduces annual mean nucleation rates, number concentration of condensation nuclei larger than 10 nm (CN10), and number concentrations of CCN at water supersaturation ratio of 0.8% (CCN0.8) and 0.2% (CCN0.2) in the lower troposphere by 6.8%, 1.36%, 0.74%, and 0.43%, respectively. The inclusion of 0.2C temperature increase enhances the CCN solar cycle signals by around 50%. The annual mean solar cycle CCN signals have large spatial and seasonal variations: (1) stronger in the lower troposphere where warm clouds are formed, (2) about 50% larger in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere, and (3) about a factor of two larger during the corresponding hemispheric summer seasons. The effect of solar cycle perturbation on CCN0.2 based on present study is generally higher than those reported in several previous studies, up to around one order of magnitude.
​

The wider variation in CCNs makes the Svenmark’s hypothesis more plausible since the effect on clouds would also be proportionately larger.
They conclude:

The measured 0.1% level of the longterm TSI variations on Earth’s climate (i.e., solar direct climatic effect) is too small to account for the apparent correlation between observed historical solar variations and climate changes, and several mechanisms amplifying the solar variation impacts have been proposed in the literature.
Here we seek to assess how much solar variation may affect CCN abundance through the impacts of GCR and temperature changes on new particle formation, using a global aerosol model (GEOSChem/APM) optimized for simulating detailed particle formation and growth processes. Based on the GEOSChem/ APM simulations, a decrease in ionization rate associated with GCR flux change from solar minimum to solar maximum reduces global mean nucleation rates CN3, CN10, CCN0.8, CCN0.4, and CCN0.2 in the lower troposphere (0–3 km) by 6.8%, 1.91%, 1.36%, 0.74%, 0.54%, and 0.43%, respectively. The inclusion of the impact of 0.2 C temperature increase enhances the CCN solar cycle signals by around 50%.
The annual mean solar cycle CCN signals have large spatial and seasonal variations, about 50% larger than in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere and about a factor of two larger during the corresponding summer seasons. The average solar cycle signals are stronger in the lower troposphere where warm clouds are formed. The regions and seasons of stronger solar signals are associated with the higher concentrations of precursor gases which increase the growth rate of nucleated particles and the probability of these nucleated particles to become CCN. The effect of solar cycle perturbation on CCN0.2 based on the present study is generally higher than those reported in several previous studies, up to one order of magnitude. Clouds play a key role in the energy budget of Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere.
Small modifications of the amount, distribution, or radiative properties of clouds can have significant impacts on the climate. To study the impacts of a 0.5%–1% change in CCN during a solar cycle on cloud albedo, precipitation, cloud lifetime, and cloud cover, a global climate model considering robust aerosol–cloud interaction processes is needed. It should be noted that 0.5%–1% change in CCN during a solar cycle shown here only considers the effect of ionization rate and temperature change on new particle formation. During a solar cycle, changes of other parameters such as UV and TSI flux may also impact chemistry and microphysics, which may influence the magnitude of the solar indirect forcing. Further research is needed to better quantify the impact of solar activities on Earth’s climate.
​

Note the bold in the last paragraph.
WUWT readers may recall that Dr. Roy Spencer pointed out the issue of a slight change in cloud cover in his 2010 book intro of The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists. He writes:

“The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.”
​

The paper at ERL:
Effect of solar variations on particle formation and cloud condensation nuclei
Fangqun Yu and Gan Luo
The impact of solar variations on particle formation and cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), a critical step for one of the possible solar indirect climate forcing pathways, is studied here with a global aerosol model optimized for simulating detailed particle formation and growth processes. The effect of temperature change in enhancing the solar cycle CCN signal is investigated for the first time. Our global simulations indicate that a decrease in ionization rate associated with galactic cosmic ray flux change from solar minimum to solar maximum reduces annual mean nucleation rates, number concentration of condensation nuclei larger than 10 nm (CN10), and number concentrations of CCN at water supersaturation ratio of 0.8% (CCN0.8) and 0.2% (CCN0.2) in the lower troposphere by 6.8%, 1.36%, 0.74%, and 0.43%, respectively. The inclusion of 0.2 °C temperature increase enhances the CCN [cloud condensation nuclei] solar cycle signals by around 50%. The annual mean solar cycle CCN signals have large spatial and seasonal variations: (1) stronger in the lower troposphere where warm clouds are formed, (2) about 50% larger in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere, and (3) about a factor of two larger during the corresponding hemispheric summer seasons. The effect of solar cycle perturbation on CCN0.2 [cloud condensation nuclei] based on present study is generally higher than those reported in several previous studies, up to around one order of magnitude.
The paper is open access and can be downloaded here: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/4/045004/pdf/1748-9326_9_4_045004.pdf

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/...-ray-modulation-of-earths-climate-hypothesis/

 

[trichrider]

President Obama's Global Warming Calculated Deception Means Democrats Have Abandoned Working People


John Coleman, Co-Founder of the Weather Channel, commented on May 8 about Brother Love’s Traveling Salvation Show on global warming a week ago (aka the National Climate Assessment and its mainstream media “coverage”), saying,

“The sky is falling. ‘Climate Change’ is running wild and disaster is certain unless we immediately stop burning coal and oil and move quickly to ‘green energy’ to eliminate use of fossil fuels. Heat waves, huge floods, powerful storms, droughts and rising seas are on the verge of killing millions of us and destroying our civilization. That is my summary of the new Federal Assessment of Climate Change….”

I am deeply disturbed to have to suffer through this total distortion of the data and agenda driven, destructive episode of bad science gone berserk….based on a theory that the increase in the atmosphere from the exhaust from the burning of fossil fuels leads to a dramatic increase in ‘the greenhouse effect’ causing temperatures to skyrocket uncontrollably. This theory has failed to verify and is obviously dead wrong. But the politically funded and agenda driven scientists who have built their careers on this theory and live well on the $2.6 billion dollars a year of Federal grants for global warming, climate change, research cling to this theory and bend the data spread to support the glorified claims in their reports and papers.”

This is a well-informed, well-reasoned understanding of the National Climate Assessment report, which is an exercise in political science, not climate science. What you will not see in the report are the basic truths below regarding climate science, over which reasonable people cannot differ!

While the National Climate Assessment, and Obama talking points, use the term carbon “pollution,” carbon dioxide (CO2), the “greenhouse gas” supposedly causing most of the trouble, is a natural substance essential for the survival of all life on the planet. Plants need CO2 to grow and conduct photosynthesis, which is the natural process that creates food for animals and fish at the bottom of the food chain.

Indeed, the increased atmospheric concentration of CO2 as the industrial revolution has flourished worldwide has increased agricultural output and production over the last 20 years by well over $1 trillion. As a result, the only documented effects of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere so far have been positive.




In addition, even with increasing human CO2 emissions, carbon dioxide is still a trace gas in the environment, constituting just 0.04% of the atmosphere, or 4/100ths of one percent. Indeed, we still live in a carbon dioxide starved world today, especially given the crucial importance of CO2 to plant and animal life. Proxy data shows that during the Pre-Cambrian period, about 550 million years ago, CO2 concentration levels were 15 times greater. Yet, no record of any catastrophic results. Instead, modern life flourished and evolved.



National Climate Assessment ReleasedNational Climate Assessment Released (Photo credit: NASA Goddard Photo and Video)

Moreover, human emissions of CO2 are only 4% to 5% of total global emissions, counting natural causes. So human CO2 emissions are a minor contribution to an almost negligible, natural component of the atmosphere, again essential to the survival of all life on the planet.

In addition, uncontested global temperature data shows there has been no global warming for 17 years and 8 months now, even though human global CO2 emissions have continued to accelerate that entire time, to unprecedented levels. Indeed, the Economist reported last year that from 2000 to 2010, human carbon dioxide emissions totaled roughly 100 billion tons of CO2, which equaled about one-fourth of all human emissions since the early rumblings of the industrial revolution in 1750.




Forbes contributor James Taylor noted in a May 9 Heartland Institute publication that 2014 so far has been the coldest year for the U.S. ever, at least through May 6, according to the network of nationwide thermometers monitored by the U.S. Historical Climatology Network. Taylor writes, “Assertions that warming temperatures in the United States are causing a host of problems are soundly contradicted by the objective temperature data.”

Soon, the more recent period of no global warming will be longer than the older period of actual global warming, which lasted only about 20 years, from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. Preceding that were 30 years of global cooling, generating alarms regarding a new ice age (which is actually overdue, given historical climate cycles). Even Britain’s Met Office, an international cheerleading headquarters for global warming hysteria, conceded in December, 2012 that there would be no further warming at least through 2017, which would make 21 plus years with no global warming.

The foundation for the establishment’s argument for global warming is nothing more than broad theory, which does nothing to specify how much warming and when, and 73 climate models collected by the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). But the problem is that the warming trends projected by these models are all diverging farther and farther from the real world trend of actual temperature observations. Not only have these models never been validated, which means that their projections at this point are nothing more than fabrications. At this point, these models have been falsified by real world temperature data.

Don’t give me political propaganda talking points that 97 percent of climate scientists agree with the allegation of pending, catastrophic, man caused, global warming. That too is a mere fabrication already falsified as having no foundation.

If this is the first time you are hearing any of this, that means the news sources you are relying on are inadequate. In my opinion, the New York Times and the Washington Post are no longer credible sources of real world news, let alone Rachel Maddow or Chris Mathews. They are today party controlled mouthpieces, who behave toward the current Administration voluntarily just as Pravda and Izvestia did under compulsion during the old Soviet dictatorships.

In light of the incontestable real climate science discussed above, the Obama Administration’s National Climate Assessment released last week can only be considered an exercise in calculated deception, and public manipulation. Marlo Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute rightly called it “an alarmist document to scare people and build political support for unpopular policies such as carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, and EPA regulatory mandates,” in his May 6 analysis on the FoxNews.com website.

The National Climate Assessment states, “The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels.” But there is no proof of this basic declarative statement in the entire 841 pages of the National Climate Assessment report. Instead, the incontestable climate science truths explained above show that the global warming of the past 50 years was 20 years of warming from the late 1970s to the late 1990s, preceded by roughly 30 years of global cooling, followed by almost 20 years of no warming, despite record acceleration during this time of human carbon dioxide emissions.




The National Climate Assessment states, “as these data records have grown longer and climate models have become more comprehensive, earlier predictions have largely been confirmed.” Such a blatantly false statement, exactly the opposite of reality, in an official U.S. government report that cost taxpayers $7 billion of whitewashing over 3 years, is shameful. As incontestably explained above, the climate model projections have only grown farther and farther from reality over the past 34 years actually, particularly during the last 17 plus years of no global warming.

These climate models, whose projections cannot even replicate the past, have again actually been falsified by the real world temperature data. So to say that over time, as “the climate models have become more comprehensive, earlier predictions have largely been confirmed,” would be fraudulent, if the statements had not been so transparently penned by PR flacks, with no idea of any actual “climate science,” let alone the incontestable climate science truths explained above.

The National Climate Assessment adds, inexplicably, “Climate disruptions to agriculture have been increasing and are projected to become more severe over this century. Some areas are already experiencing climate-related disruptions….From mid-century on, climate change is projected to have more negative impacts on crops and livestock across the country – a trend that could diminish the security of our food supply.”

But as incontestably explained above, the increased carbon dioxide atmospheric concentration has unambiguously and substantially increased agricultural yields, which is more well established than any other proposition of climate science today. Again, over the past 20 years, that has amounted to well over $1 trillion in increased agricultural output, so again the NCA statement is directly the opposite of reality. You see what I mean by calculated deception?

The National Climate Assessment tells us.

“Some extreme weather and climate events have increased in recent decades, and new and stronger evidence confirms that some of these increases are related to human activities. Changes in extreme weather events are the primary way that most people experience climate change….Over the last 50 years, much of the United States has seen an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, and in some regions, more severe droughts.”




So the increased CO2 is supposedly responsible for both more heavy downpours, and more severe droughts. But the truth is there has been no increase in extreme weather events at all. Paul Driessen reports for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) that “No Category 3-5 hurricane has made landfall in the United States since 2005, the longest such period since at least 1900.” Moreover, “U.S. tornado frequency remains very low, and property damage and loss of life from tornadoes have decreased over the past six decades.” University of Colorado Professor Roger Pielke, Jr. authoritatively finds that “the number of years with very large tornado losses has actually decreased” during 1993-2013 compared to 1950 to 1970.

Even the Bible for global warming/climate change, the latest report from the U.N.’s IPCC, as well as analysis from the Obama Administration’s own National Climatic Data Center, both conclude that no case can be made that extreme weather is increasing. As the Heritage Foundation explains, that means “no significant trends for floods, droughts, hurricanes or tornados.”

Even the National Climate Assessment itself says, “there has been no universal trend in the overall extent of drought across the continental U.S. since 1900.” Other trends in severe storms, “are uncertain.” Lewis accurately reports, “The Assessment ignores substantial data and research finding no long-term increases in the strength and frequency of tropical cyclones and no trend in extreme weather-related damages once losses are ‘normalized’ (adjusted for changes in population, wealth, and consumer price index).”

The National Climate Assessment further fantasizes,

“Infrastructure is being damaged by sea level rise, heavy downpours, and extreme heat….Sea level rise, storm surge, and heavy downpours, in combination with continued development in coastal areas, are increasing damage to U.S. infrastructure including roads, buildings, and industrial facilities, and are also increasing risks to ports and coastal military installations. Flooding along rivers, lakes, and in cities following heavy downpours, prolonged rains, and rapid melting of snow ice pack is exceeding the limits of flood protection infrastructure designed for historical conditions. Extreme heat is damaging transportation infrastructure such as roads, rail lines, and airport runways.

Not one word of this passage is demonstrated by the 841 pages of the report either.




Sea level has been rising, in fact, since the end of the last ice age, 12,000 years ago! But there has been no acceleration in the rate of that sea level rise for at least 200 years, as accurately reported at the Hockey Schtick website on May 6. Over that past 200 years, the long term, stable sea level rise has averaged a mere 6.6 inches per century, as measured by major tidal gauge studies. Yet, the Obama Administration’s National Climate Assessment tries to tell us that global sea levels could rise by as much as 6.6 feet by 2100, which would be 12 times the current long term average rate over the last 200 years! Moreover, a 2014 peer-reviewed study just published by Cazenave et al finds the rate of sea level rise has decelerated by 31% since 2002. That is consistent with a slight global cooling trend since that time, which some senior scientists predict could last decades. Are you seeing the calculated deception now?

All of this true climate science is authoritatively explained in complete detail in the thousands of pages of Climate Change Reconsidered II, authored by the dozens of top scientists serving on the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), and published this year in ultimately 3 volumes of thousands of pages by the Heartland Institute. Those volumes are “double peer reviewed,” in that they discusses thousands of peer reviewed articles published in scientific journals, and are themselves peer reviewed. Last year, the Cato Institute published a thorough, comprehensive refutation of the publicly released draft of the National Climate Assessment, The Missing Science from the Draft National Assessment on Climate Change, by Patrick J. Michaels, et. al. If you are interested in knowing what you are talking about, and are an intelligent layman, you can be thoroughly educated by those calm, dispassionate, comprehensive, reasoned discussions of the issues surrounding global warming and “climate change.” You can learn more by attending the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change, to be held at the Mandalay Bay Resort in Las Vegas, July 7-9, with more than 1,000 scientists from around the world.

But the bottom line is the political science, not the climate science, as Obama White House Science Advisor John Holdren has previously revealed. He has stated, “A massive campaign must be launched to…de-develop the United States…bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation….We must design a stable, low consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth.”

And that is what the Obama Administration is doing, with global warming/climate change as the foil. Obama told us during the 2008 election that under his plan for global warming/climate change, “the cost of electricity would necessarily skyrocket.” That would be awful for American consumers, as well as for working people, the middle class, the poor, and their jobs, wages and incomes. But Obama’s policies would mean higher costs for energy across the board.

While Obama has not yet been able to stop the fracking technology that is producing an American oil and natural gas boom on private and state owned lands, he has sharply constricted oil and natural gas exploration and development on the extensive federally owned lands, and offshore. That is why gasoline prices have doubled since he became President. The Heritage Foundation further explains that under Obama’s policies, the EPA’s “proposed limits for carbon dioxide emissions essentially would prohibit the construction of new coal-fired power plants, and force existing ones into early retirement, driving up the cost of energy on American families and businesses.”




Then there is Obama’s indefinite hold up of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would simply transport, at no cost to taxpayers, abundant, low cost Canadian oil and natural gas to American Gulf Coast refineries, assuring American access to low cost, reliable oil and gas supplies. But if Canada can’t sell to America through Keystone, they will sell the oil and gas to our emerging rival in China, through pipelines to the Canadian west coast. These policies would not only deprive America of maybe 50,000 high paying jobs for construction of the extensive pipeline networks, but also for the budding boom and rebirth of American manufacturing, and associated higher paying blue collar jobs, that the revival of low cost, reliable American energy supplies is producing.

All of this means that Obama is on track for his skyrocketing electricity and other energy costs that are the inevitable result of constricted supply of low cost, reliable, American energy. The Heritage Foundation further explains that “Higher energy prices shrink production and consumption, resulting in less income for families, more people in the unemployment line and less economic growth.”

Driessen adds that as a result, “The Obama agenda…will leave more millions jobless, and reduce the ability of families to heat and cool their homes properly, assure nutritious meals, pay their rent or mortgage, and pursue their American dreams. America’s minority and blue collar families will suffer – while Washington, DC power brokers and lobbyists will continue to enjoy standards of living, housing booms and luxury cars that are unknown in the nation’s heartland. Think Hunger Games or the Politburo and nomenklatura of Soviet Russia.”

The National Climate Assessment even suggests to Americans, “replacing short vehicle commutes with biking or walking and reducing your red meat intake to reduce the amount of methane emitted from the animals we eat.” Looks like Holdren and his buddy Obama are on track for their low consumption economy as well. Did we ever vote for that? Congress, Democrats and Republicans, are not supporting that. Someone needs to take away Obama’s pen and his phone, before he commits national suicide.

What this amounts to is the fundamental transformation of the Democratic Party. Democrats are abandoning blue collar working people, in favor of what columnist Joel Kotkin calls the Gentry Liberals, in his brilliant analysis in the May 9 Orange County Register. Gentry liberals are well-heeled, highly prosperous, trendy, high rollers in tony, high end, coastal communities from San Francisco and Silicon Valley, to Hollywood, the Southern California beach cities, Seattle, Wall Street, the Hamptons, Martha’s Vineyard, and similar precincts.




They are the crony capitalists, play acting like successful entrepreneurs, while benefitting from government policies favoring the richest. That includes tens of billions seized from taxpayers in “green energy” handouts and giveaways, and hundreds of billions in Wall Street bailouts. It includes low interest, easy credit available to the big boys and corporate players, but not small business and Main Street, at the expense of seniors trying to scrape by on their dwindling savings. Those virtually zero interest rates also prop up big banks and too big to fail finance, while smaller community and regional banks are crushed by Dodd-Frank regulatory burdens. The negligible interest rates also pump up the stock market, further benefitting the top 1% and Wall Street finance, also benefiting from guaranteed big profits from marketing federal debt.

These rich, gentry liberals have outbid the traditional Democrat base of blue collar working people. Think hedge fund billionaire and crony capitalist Tom Steyer, with folks like George Soros also in on the scam. Kotkin adds, “The gentry liberals’ power stems from their dominion over most of the key institutions – the media, the universities, academia and high-tech [also Wall Street and big finance] – that provide both cash and credibility to the current administration.”

But the problem, as Kotkin further explains, is “What most marks the gentry, particularly in California, is their insensitivity to the impact of their policies on working-class and middle-class voters.” Not to mention the poor and minorities. Ironically, Obama’s biggest supporters, blacks, Hispanics, the poor, young workers, and women, have suffered the most under his policies.

Steve Moore has also been writing about the growing Democratic party divide between green and blue. He writes in Investor’s Business Daily on May 2, “Big Green is already fast at work wiping out America’s coal industry, with entire mining towns nearly shut down in states like Kentucky and West Virginia….Liberals used to pretend to care about these people.”

He adds, “The green agenda is fundamentally at odds with the agenda of blue-collar union Democrats,” concluding “What’s needed is a movement to educate Americans about what scary people the greens really are.” Again, think Hunger Games.




How could the scientists involved in the National Climate Assessment, and the U.N.’s IPCC reports, get the basic global warming/climate change science so wrong, as discussed above? During the Soviet Communist era in Russia, under Stalin in the 1930s, the government promoted a peasant, non-scientist named Trofim Lysenko to be the Director of the Soviet Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Lysenko virulently rejected the rising Mendelian genetics of the time, holding that acquired characteristics of plants, and maybe of animals and even humans, during their lives could be inherited. This fit the reigning Marxist doctrine of the time that human character and traits were malleable, and that the Soviet government was in the process of creating the selfless, modern, new Soviet man, perfectly suited to life under Communism.

Scientists who promoted such Lysenkoism with faked data and destroyed counterevidence were favored with government funding and official recognition and awards. Lysenko and his followers and media acolytes responded to critics by impugning their motives, and denouncing them as bourgeois fascists resisting the advance of the new modern Marxism. Remember, Lenin himself invented the term “politically correct.”

The V.I. Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences ultimately announced on August 7, 1948 that thenceforth Lysenkoism would be taught in schools as the only correct theory. All Soviet scientists were required to denounce any work that contradicted Lysenkoism. Ultimately, Soviet geneticists resisting Lysenkoism were imprisoned and even executed. Lysenkoism was abandoned for the correct modern science of Mendelian genetics only as late as 1964.

This same practice of Lysenkoism has long been under way in western science in regard to the politically correct theory of man caused, catastrophic, global warming. That theory is currently politically correct because it promotes vastly increased government power and control over the private economy, for the U.S. government, governments in Western Europe, and even for a potential world government imposing global taxes and regulations, which the U.N. dreams of achieving. Advocates of the theory are lionized in the dominant Democrat party controlled media in the U.S., and in leftist controlled media abroad. Critics of the theory are denounced as “deniers,” and even still bourgeois fascists, with their motives impugned.

See the recent disgraceful treatment by brown shirts posing as scientists of Swedish Professor Lennart Bengtsson, with a long, distinguished, international career in meteorology and climate research, including formerly as Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, after he very publicly dissented from global warming/“climate change” orthodoxy.

Those who promote the politically correct theory are favored with billions from government grants and neo-Marxist environmentalist largesse, and official recognition and award. Faked and tampered data and evidence has arisen in favor of the politically correct theory. Is not man-caused, catastrophic global warming now the only theory allowed to be taught in the West?

Those in positions of scientific authority in the West who have collaborated with this new Lysenkoism because they felt they must be politically correct, and/or because of the money, publicity, and recognition to be gained, have disgraced themselves and the integrity of their institutions, organizations and publications.

But there is a more virulent strain at the root of Western Lysenkoism today. Scientists, like Holdren and Michael Mann, can be leftist ideologues as well, posing to manipulate and mislead for the good of the cause. Bottom line: green is the new red. That is why Obama at root is so committed to it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...eans-democrats-have-abandoned-working-people/

 

[trichrider]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td2InffQcwM

[YOUTUBEIF]Td2InffQcwM[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[mrcreosote]

"Democrats Have Abandoned Working People"


Thank Dog.
Now we might be able to get something done.

"What? ...I won 1st Prize...a pizza? Bitchin!

Oh...The Peace Prize...

Fuck off."

 

[dannykarey]

Foomar brother...........you are one patient mofo.

Thank you for all that you do.

It's kinda funny, the peeps that are geniunely interested in these subjects would do very well in a science based program/career/job setting. Growing weed involves Math, Chemistry, Biology, genetics(on a very basic level, but still).........it would be cool if everybody on the boards decided to go and take some science/biology/chemistry/phySUX classes.......I think they would all be pleasantly surprised at how well they do and how much they would learn. I mean no offense to anybody it's just funny.....I did horrible in school the first time around, 15 years later and I find it kinda fun.....Almost like I used to think being stupid/getting bad grades was cool, but really it was exactly how it sounded.....it was f'n stupid lol.

If peeps spent the same amount of time educating themselves in a classroom as they do on f'n youtube.......The world would be a much better place.

Keep up the good fight Foomar.

Danny

 

[trichrider]

life is about learning.
could you be confusing obstinance with patience?

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube%2c+stubborn%2c+learning%2c+outdated&FORM=VIRE1#view=detail&mid=EF4DFE3606A94195DE43EF4DFE3606A94195DE43

many people find visual cues easier and faster to understand without reams of dry reading.

 

[Skinny Leaf]

Looks like the U.S. Air Force is not interested in running the HAARP project any longer and is supposedly going to shut it down in June(this month), after one last project. Although, there are a few universities that are inquiring about taking it over. One last note on the shutdown, the HAARP facility does not meet EPA guidelines on pollution control. It seems the generators used to power the facility are what keeps it from meeting those guidelines.

As far as a link, I didn't feel like it. The story is out there.

 

[trichrider]

New EPA rule would seek to cut carbon emissions 30% by 2030


A proposal by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is intended to limit air pollution by carbon dioxide, a gas that traps heat in the atmosphere and drives global warming. (Mark Wilson / Getty Images)


President Obama seeks to cut greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants 30% by 2030

Obama emissions plan is potentially one of the biggest steps any country has taken to confront climate change

June 1, 2014, 10:52 PM|Reporting from WASHINGTON



The Obama administration will seek to cut greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants 30% from 2005 levels by 2030, potentially one of the biggest steps any country has taken to confront climate change, people familiar with the plan said Sunday..

Seen as the linchpin of President Obama's climate campaign and a key part of his domestic policy legacy, the proposed power plant rule would set state-specific targets for carbon dioxide reductions and let local officials decide how best to meet the goals.

The proposal by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is intended to limit air pollution by carbon dioxide, a gas that traps heat in the atmosphere and drives global warming.

“Myself and others are sounding the real alarm of how the president's plan will be dangerous for our economy and future job opportunities. Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.)

The complex rule, which will be officially announced Monday, faces a yearlong comment and review period. It is certain to spark a high-stakes legal and political battle that will echo through the November midterm election and beyond.

Opponents — including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the mining industry and congressional Republicans and Democrats from coal-producing states — have already lined up against it. Critics labeled it government overreach that would do little to reduce climate change while costing tens of billions of dollars and thousands of jobs.

"Now the president is once again looking to do through regulation what he couldn't accomplish through legislation. But myself and others are sounding the real alarm of how the president's plan will be dangerous for our economy and future job opportunities," said Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), citing a U.S. Chamber of Commerce report that estimated the rule could cost the economy $50 billion annually.

Related: U.S. Chamber says new EPA rule could cost economy $51 billion a yearPolitics NowU.S. Chamber says new EPA rule could cost economy $51 billion a year.

But environmental groups and other administration allies applauded the proposal as crucial to efforts to cut the single greatest source of greenhouse gases. Power plants account for an estimated 40% of all carbon dioxide emissions in the country.

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), who took part in a conference call with Obama and other key officials late Sunday, praised the plan because it gives states and regions flexibility to meet the emission targets.

"This allows economies to adjust and transform over time in a very aggressive way but a very realistic way," said Schatz, who has made climate change a signature issue since he joined the Senate in 2012.

"This is becoming a consensus, rational position for people of all parties across the country," Schatz said. "Republicans are on the wrong side of history here. That's going to become clear not just over the long run but over the next couple of elections."

“Republicans are on the wrong side of history here. That's going to become clear not just over the long run but over the next couple of elections.”- Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii)

The rule would allow states to offset their carbon emissions by developing other parts of the power grid, including greater energy efficiency or increased use of renewable energy, such as wind and solar.

"The reality of it is that we will have to build and invest in renewables," said Lisa Bonnett, director of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.

The 30% cut will be based on 2005 emission levels, which were 10% higher than in 2012. The decline stems from the recent boom in cleaner-burning natural gas, which has displaced a great deal of coal as a fuel source.

In addition, different states would have different targets, based on their fuel mix.

States that burn a lot of coal would begin their reductions from a higher emissions level than those that burn natural gas, which emits less carbon dioxide.

Because the rule has not been officially issued, the 30% reduction could be one of several options the EPA presents for public comment, environmentalists said.

Obama telephoned a group of Senate and House Democrats to thank them for their support in advance of Monday's announcement by Gina McCarthy, head of the EPA.

If enacted, the rule would make good on a pledge Obama made last year to tackle climate change through his executive authority in the face of congressional inaction on the issue.

Domestic opponents of unilateral U.S. action argue that climate change is a global problem that requires emissions cuts from all major polluters, especially newly industrializing giants China, India and Brazil.

The rule's backers say a strong curb on greenhouse gas emissions could give U.S. negotiators more leverage at the next major United Nations meeting to address climate change, scheduled for 2015 in Paris.

Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, said an ambitious U.S. carbon standard would lead to "stronger agreements for similar reductions from China, India and Brazil."

Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, seemed to agree.

"The decision by President Obama to launch plans to more tightly regulate emissions from power plants will send a good signal to nations everywhere that one of the world's biggest emitters is taking the future of the planet and its people seriously," she said in a statement. "I fully expect action by the United States to spur others in taking concrete action."

Obama pledged after he was first elected that, by 2020, the U.S. would cut its greenhouse gas emissions 17% from 2005 levels.

But in mid-2010, Congress defeated an ambitious package of "cap and trade" climate change measures that would have imposed deep cuts on the production of greenhouse gases.

Since then, nearly all congressional Republicans and some Democrats from fossil-fuel-producing states have denied that human activity is behind the rapid warming of the planet.

As a result, the White House retooled its climate strategy in the second term to bypass Congress with piecemeal measures.

Although the carbon standard is the most sweeping, it's not the first.

In September, the EPA proposed rules to curtail greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants. The stringent limits, which will be completed in January, would all but ensure a halt in new construction of coal-fired plants.

This year, the administration announced tougher fuel economy standards for heavy-duty, long-haul trucks that complement existing fuel efficiency rules for cars and light trucks.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-climate-change-rule-20140602-story.html

this will impact power rates and make it more expensive to grow inside. sequestering carbon with hemp fields while simultaneously producing fuel, food, textiles, and medicine seems a more propitious approach.

 

[trichrider]

Geoengineering WON’T stop global warming, warns study

This is according to a Canadian-led report that looked at 100 climate studies
The authors found that some approaches are more promising than others
These included forest management and geological storage of CO2

Others are less appealing, such as filling oceans with iron to absorb CO2
It follows a similar report in February that found schemes to deliberately manipulate the Earth’s climate could prove useless, and at worst harmful
This report found that geoengineering techniques would be unable to prevent surface temperatures from rising more than 2°C (3.6°F) by 2100


By Ellie Zolfagharifard

Published: 08:39 EST, 4 June 2014 | Updated: 10:54 EST, 4 June 2014

From aerosols that spray salt into the air, to machines that suck carbon from the atmosphere, scientists are conjuring up an increasing array of geoengineering techniques to battle climate change.

But this type of ‘climate engineering’ – which involves manipulating the natural processes after emissions have been released – will ultimately fail to help the world reach its emissions targets.

This is according to a new report authored by U.S. and Canadian researchers at six universities that argue tinkering with climate change isn't a viable long-term solution to global warming.

From aerosols iron fertilisation of the sea (left) to cloud seeding and greening deserts (right), scientists are conjuring up an increasing array of geoengineering techniques to battle climate change. But this type of ‘climate engineering’ will ultimately fail to prevent global warming, according to a new report

The report looked at a range of possible climate-altering approaches and concluded there is no way around it; governments have to reduce the amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere.

‘Some climate engineering strategies look very cheap on paper,’ said Dr Jonn Axsen, lead author of the study at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada.

‘But when you consider other criteria, like ecological risk, public perceptions and the abilities of governments to control the technology, some options look very bad.’

Simon Fraser University professor Jonn Axsen has co-authored a new report on climate engineering to battle climate change. The report looked at a range of possible climate-altering approaches and concluded there is no way around it; governments have to reduce the amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere.

POTENTIAL SIDE EFFECTS OF FIVE GEOENGINEERING STRATEGIES

Afforestation: This technique would irrigate deserts, such as those in Australia and North Africa, to plant millions of trees that could absorb carbon dioxide.

Drawback: This vegetation would also draw in sunlight that the deserts currently reflect back into space, and so contribute to global warming.

Artificial ocean upwelling: Engineers would use long pipes to pump cold, nutrient-rich water upward to cool ocean-surface waters.

Drawback: If this process ever stopped it could cause oceans to rebalance their heat levels and rapidly change the climate.

Ocean alkalinisation: This involves heaping lime into the ocean to chemically increase the absorption of carbon dioxide.

Drawback: Study suggests it will have of little use in reducing global temperatures.

Ocean iron fertilisation: The method involves dumping iron into the oceans to improve the growth of photosynthetic organisms that can absorb carbon dioxide.

Drawback: Study suggests it will have of little use in reducing global temperatures.

Solar radiation management: This would reduce the amount of sunlight Earth receives, by shooting reflective sulphate-based aerosols into the atmosphere.

Drawback: Carbon dioxide would still build up in the atmosphere.
.
The authors argue some approaches to climate engineering are more promising than others.

Strategies such as forest management and geological storage of carbon dioxide, for instance, may be useful if used alongside emission reduction.

Other climate engineering strategies are less appealing, such as fertilising the ocean with iron to absorb carbon dioxide or reducing global warming by injecting particles into the atmosphere to block sunlight.

‘Take the example of solar radiation management, which is the idea of putting aerosols into the stratosphere, kind of like what happens when a large volcano erupts,’ Dr Axsen said.

‘This is a surprisingly cheap way to reduce global temperatures, and we have the technology to do it. But our study asked other important questions.

‘What are the environmental risks? Will global citizens accept this? What country would manage this? Is that fair? Suddenly, this strategy does not look so attractive.’

The report was compiled over two years using research from more than 100 studies.

It follows a similar report in February that found schemes to deliberately manipulate the Earth’s climate could prove useless, and at worst harmful.

Researchers at the Geomar Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Germany used software to test the potential benefits and drawbacks of five different geoengineering technologies.

Their study suggests that even when several technologies are combined, geoengineering would be unable to prevent average surface temperatures from rising more than 2°C (3.6°F) above current temperatures by the year 2100.

‘The long-term consequences and side effects of these methods have not been adequately studied,’ said Dr David Keller from the Geomar Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel, Germany.

One strategy, known as afforestation, would irrigate deserts, such as those in Australia and North Africa, to plant millions of trees that could absorb carbon dioxide.

Artificial ocean upwelling is another method that would use long pipes to pump cold, nutrient-rich water upward to cool ocean-surface waters. But if this process ever stopped, the researchers note that it could cause oceans to rebalance their heat levels and rapidly change the climate

Artificial ocean upwelling is another method that would use long pipes to pump cold, nutrient-rich water upward to cool ocean-surface waters. But if this process ever stopped, the researchers note that it could cause oceans to rebalance their heat levels and rapidly change the climate

However, this vegetation would also draw in sunlight that the deserts currently reflect back into space, and so contribute to global warming.

Artificial ocean upwelling is another method that would use long pipes to pump cold, nutrient-rich water upward to cool ocean-surface waters.

But if this process ever stopped, the researchers note that it could cause oceans to rebalance their heat levels rapidly changing the climate.

Another approach, known as ocean alkalinisation, would heap lime into the ocean to chemically increase the absorption of carbon dioxide.

Similarly a technique known as ocean iron fertilisation would dump iron into the oceans to improve the growth of photosynthetic organisms that can absorb carbon dioxide.

A final method, known as solar radiation management, would reduce the amount of sunlight Earth receives, by shooting reflective sulphate-based aerosols into the atmosphere.

This would cool the planet by reducing sunlight, but carbon dioxide would still build up in the atmosphere.

But more worryingly, the study reports that each geoengineering technique can have potentially serious side effects.

For example, the fertilisation of the oceans allowed plankton to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, but also changed the size of ocean oxygen minimum zones.

Individually, each strategy reduces global warming by less than eight per cent, assuming carbon dioxide emission levels continue to remain at current levels.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...global-warming-warns-study.html#ixzz33sClGSl0
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[foomar]

many people find visual cues easier and faster to understand without reams of dry reading.

Many are now simply too lazy to read a book or scientific PDF or lack the comprehension skills and vocabulary to do so effectively.

The trouble with youtube is its no cost for any muppet to do one and the level of science and facts expressed is often pitiful , and given a credibility they do not deserve.

Which is how chemtrails and other nonsense took root , the tube is contributing to the general dumbing down of society.

 

[SativaBreather]

The forum would be better off without your tedious conspiratorial contributions and excessive cut and pastes , like when you were recently banned.

Just like most everything you post, this is also bullshit