PDA

View Full Version : 2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved


Lars
12-28-2008, 12:25 PM
28 Dec 2008

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html

2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved

By Christopher Booker







Looking back over my columns of the past 12 months, one of their major themes was neatly encapsulated by two recent items from The Daily Telegraph.

The first, on May 21, headed "Climate change threat to Alpine ski resorts" , reported that the entire Alpine "winter sports industry" could soon "grind to a halt for lack of snow". The second, on December 19, headed "The Alps have best snow conditions in a generation" , reported that this winter's Alpine snowfalls "look set to beat all records by New Year's Day".

Easily one of the most important stories of 2008 has been all the evidence suggesting that this may be looked back on as the year when there was a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming. Just when politicians in Europe and America have been adopting the most costly and damaging measures politicians have ever proposed, to combat this supposed menace, the tide has turned in three significant respects.

First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare. Last winter, as temperatures plummeted, many parts of the world had snowfalls on a scale not seen for decades. This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century.

Ever shriller and more frantic has become the insistence of the warmists, cheered on by their army of media groupies such as the BBC, that the last 10 years have been the "hottest in history" and that the North Pole would soon be ice-free – as the poles remain defiantly icebound and those polar bears fail to drown. All those hysterical predictions that we are seeing more droughts and hurricanes than ever before have infuriatingly failed to materialise.

Even the more cautious scientific acolytes of the official orthodoxy now admit that, thanks to "natural factors" such as ocean currents, temperatures have failed to rise as predicted (although they plaintively assure us that this cooling effect is merely "masking the underlying warming trend", and that the temperature rise will resume worse than ever by the middle of the next decade).

Secondly, 2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a "scientific consensus" in favour of man-made global warming collapsed. At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world's most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that "consensus" which was only a politically engineered artefact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions.

Thirdly, as banks collapsed and the global economy plunged into its worst recession for decades, harsh reality at last began to break in on those self-deluding dreams which have for so long possessed almost every politician in the western world. As we saw in this month's Poznan conference, when 10,000 politicians, officials and "environmentalists" gathered to plan next year's "son of Kyoto" treaty in Copenhagen, panicking politicians are waking up to the fact that the world can no longer afford all those quixotic schemes for "combating climate change" with which they were so happy to indulge themselves in more comfortable times.

Suddenly it has become rather less appealing that we should divert trillions of dollars, pounds and euros into the fantasy that we could reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 80 per cent. All those grandiose projects for "emissions trading", "carbon capture", building tens of thousands more useless wind turbines, switching vast areas of farmland from producing food to "biofuels", are being exposed as no more than enormously damaging and futile gestures, costing astronomic sums we no longer possess.

As 2009 dawns, it is time we in Britain faced up to the genuine crisis now fast approaching from the fact that – unless we get on very soon with building enough proper power stations to fill our looming "energy gap" - within a few years our lights will go out and what remains of our economy will judder to a halt. After years of infantile displacement activity, it is high time our politicians – along with those of the EU and President Obama's US – were brought back with a mighty jolt into contact with the real world.

I must end this year by again paying tribute to my readers for the wonderful generosity with which they came to the aid of two causes. First their donations made it possible for the latest "metric martyr", the east London market trader Janet Devers, to fight Hackney council's vindictive decision to prosecute her on 13 criminal charges, ranging from selling in pounds and ounces to selling produce "by the bowl" (to avoid using weights her customers dislike and don't understand). The embarrassment caused by this historic battle has thrown the forced metrication policy of both our governments, in London and Brussels, into total disarray.

Since Hackney backed out of allowing four criminal charges against Janet to go before a jury next month, all that remains is for her to win her appeal in February against eight convictions which now look quite absurd (including those for selling veg by the bowl, as thousands of other London market traders do every day). The final goal, as Neil Herron of the Metric Martyrs Defence Fund insists, must then be a pardon for the late Steve Thoburn and the four other original "martyrs" who were found guilty in 2002 – after a legal battle also made possible by this column's readers – of breaking laws so ridiculous that the EU Commission has even denied they existed (but which are still on the statute book).

Readers were equally generous this year in rushing to the aid of Sue Smith, whose son was killed in a Snatch Land Rover in Iraq in 2005. Their contributions made it possible for her to carry on with the High Court action she has brought against the Ministry of Defence, with the sole aim of calling it to account for needlessly risking soldiers' lives by sending them into battle in hopelessly inappropriate vehicles. Thanks not least to Mrs Smith's determined fight, the Snatch Land Rover scandal, first reported here in 2006, has at last become a national cause celebre.

May I finally thank all those readers who have written to me in 2008 – so many that, as usual, it has not been possible to answer all their messages. But their support and information has been hugely appreciated. May I wish them and all of you a happy (if globally not too warm) New Year.

Fiddlerdave
12-28-2008, 07:24 PM
Such awesome self-congratulation!

Truly, a Legend in His Own Mind! :lol:

southerncross
12-30-2008, 07:51 AM
Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh!

THE scariest photo I have seen on the internet is www.spaceweather.com, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity.

What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot.

Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously.

All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.

There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold. It snowed in Baghdad for the first time in centuries, the winter in China was simply terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest on record since James Cook discovered the place in 1770.

It is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from events in a single year, so I would normally dismiss this cold snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few years.

This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers.

It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon.

The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html

have a look at today's picture and sunspot count here http://www.spaceweather.com/ the current count is Zero.

hillsidedigger
12-30-2008, 08:32 AM
Worldwide, human caused pollution and release of green-house gases are still steadily increasing.

stephanie
12-30-2008, 09:19 AM
Worldwide, human caused pollution and release of green-house gases are still steadily increasing.



I have always thought the argument over global warming was stupid (yeah... both sides)... whether it is causing changing weather patterns or not... it is pretty stupid to argue over whether we should keep dumping unbreathable crap into the air.

Earth is our only home, and we are lousy tenants.

southerncross
12-30-2008, 09:31 AM
Dont see either of you throwing away your PC's or doing without power though huh?

stephanie
12-30-2008, 09:46 AM
Dont see either of you throwing away your PC's or doing without power though huh?

Which of course would make a vast difference. :rolleyes:

flourbug
12-30-2008, 09:55 AM
SC, I don't think we have to revert to the stone age in order to take better care of the earth. There are literally thousands of things we can do right now that would have tremendous impact with virtually no disruption to our daily lives. We can build more energy efficient homes. We can telecommute to more jobs. We can make better use of online education. We can hang laundry rather than using a dryer. We can invent better showers to clean ourselves without using 30 gallons of water each time. We can turn the lights out in empty parking lots after midnight, and use motion detectors to turn them on if anyone walks through. We can use technology to our benefit in SO many ways.

But there are laws, and rules, and insurance considerations, and plain old greed, that put us ALL into a situation where we are obligated to follow a pattern that is destructive to our planet.

People are willing to make changes. The SYSTEM we live in, is not.

southerncross
12-30-2008, 10:13 AM
Which of course would make a vast difference. :rolleyes:
Not a vast difference Stephanie but if you feel so strongly about an issue then you should walk the walk as well as talk the talk, if everybody that made comments such as yours actually backed them up with actions then a vast difference could be made.

southerncross
12-30-2008, 10:40 AM
SC, I don't think we have to revert to the stone age in order to take better care of the earth. There are literally thousands of things we can do right now that would have tremendous impact with virtually no disruption to our daily lives. We can build more energy efficient homes. We can telecommute to more jobs. We can make better use of online education. We can hang laundry rather than using a dryer. We can invent better showers to clean ourselves without using 30 gallons of water each time. We can turn the lights out in empty parking lots after midnight, and use motion detectors to turn them on if anyone walks through. We can use technology to our benefit in SO many ways.

But there are laws, and rules, and insurance considerations, and plain old greed, that put us ALL into a situation where we are obligated to follow a pattern that is destructive to our planet.

People are willing to make changes. The SYSTEM we live in, is not.

People are not willing to make changes FB, not if they impact on the comfort or convenience of their day to day lives, or their hip-pockets. There are already option's out there that you have mentioned, the uptake of them is minimal due to cost and convenience.

Most people love to pay lip service to the environment, the planet, being green etc, the sort of people that go and buy their Kids a wooden toy at Xmas and then bleat about being green because they bought a toy made from plantation timber, A plantation that is a mono culture , planted on ex rainforest that has been clearfelled and now no longer offers biodiversity anymore, and have no clue that selective harvesting is of much more benefit to the environment.
The same sort of people love to harp on about the damage we as humans cause on the planet while using all the Modcons at their disposal. Just a tad hypocritical to me.

No-one is Obligated to follow a destructive pattern FB, we just choose to because it is convenient, cheap and easy. It is also easy, cheap and convenient to lay the blame on a system that we as consumers and users created and enable in our everyday lives, to throw your arms in the air and say that we have no choice is a cop out that is also easy and convenient. People vote with their wallets and product choice everyday of their lives and at every election.

flourbug
12-30-2008, 11:07 AM
SC, your viewpoint is very negative and I don't believe it is substantiated by fact. Green is VERY popular, and has been for decades. In 1992 I started both a recycling program and a clean up program in a medium sized (100k+ population) town. The participation in the recycling program was nearly unanimous and just getting the ball rolling spawned several citizen level and student level programs that continue to this day. So I have good reason to believe people ARE interested in taking real steps to clean their immediate environment and the earth as a whole.

Sure, SOME people go out and buy the wrong things out of ignorance. But the point is, they ARE making an effort - just like those people who go out and gather their neighbors and turn abandoned inner city lots into gardens. Another thread was started today on rooftop gardens and the benefits they have both in producing food and lowering energy costs in urban areas.

SC, when I purchased my property I could do anything with it. It was a small development, around a lake, in a rural area. But in the past several years many new rules have been passed "for insurance reasons" or to comply with local and state regulations. Even the people who PASSED the rules, who are my neighbors and ran for election to change them, now tell me their hands are tied - we cannot have solar panels, we cannot have rain barrels, we cannot have backyard vegetable gardens, we cannot keep chickens, we cannot fish in the lake behind our homes, we cannot use lake or well water to water our lawns, we cannot hang laundry outside or inside our homes, we may replace but cannot change the plants in our yards or the amount of grass in our lawns, we have to keep our windows shut and the AC on from May until October (to prevent black mold - or our insurance is void), and dozens of other regulations we are OBLIGATED to follow. Sure, we can choose to move - to live somewhere else, to work somewhere else - but the point is, those laws exist and they cover many thousands of people who WOULD do things differently, if they COULD.

southerncross
12-30-2008, 12:03 PM
SC, your viewpoint is very negative and I don't believe it is substantiated by fact. The fact is FB is that the current situation proves my point very well, although Green is very trendy and popular, the uptake of the very things you mentioned in your former post are minimal.

SC, when I purchased my property I could do anything with it. It was a small development, around a lake, in a rural area. But in the past several years many new rules have been passed "for insurance reasons" or to comply with local and state regulations. Even the people who PASSED the rules, who are my neighbors and ran for election to change them, now tell me their hands are tied - we cannot have solar panels, we cannot have rain barrels, we cannot have backyard vegetable gardens, we cannot keep chickens, we cannot fish in the lake behind our homes, we cannot use lake or well water to water our lawns, we cannot hang laundry outside or inside our homes,

So move then FB, No doubt not an option for you tho right? Negative, you might of found my comments but they are still accurate, you are unwilling to move, (nor should you) but also unwilling to force the changes that might let you live as you want to. Too hard, expensive, risky, unreasonable, etc.
On the other hand a third world person that has just discovered the Mobile phone for the first time is now expected to forego any sort advancement in life so that the likes of us can enjoy the life that we have become accustomed to.
This is the expectations we are wanting to enforce on the world under the auspices of the IPPC that foretell Armageddon due to AGW that is unproved and becoming more doubtful every month.
WE are the people that elected and enforce the very system you yourself have problems with now, WE are the people that conceived the purported problems that we are now dealing with whether real or not, We are the people that now complain about the restrictions or regulations that are now in force to control supposed problems that are still unproven.
So who is to blame? Green might very well be very Popular, But how many supposed greens know the fossil fuel cost of producing a solar panel or wind turbine in respect to energy gained V energy spent?,
How much energy is spent protesting the cost of energy or damage to the environment as opposed to not doing anything? when you take into account advertising, filming, printing, research, fuel, staff, editing, fund raising, and all the other associated cost's that go into just a single add on TV.
This is all of course related to the still unproven supposition that Humans are responsible for the supposed rise in World temperature, to me still unproven, to me still plenty of other reasons for any supposed temperature rises. Reasons that might not appeal to all but to me reason's that more people need to look at.

BirdGuano
12-30-2008, 01:18 PM
So who is to blame? Green might very well be very Popular, But how many supposed greens know the fossil fuel cost of producing a solar panel or wind turbine in respect to energy gained V energy spent?

Toyota Prius, the golden star of the environmental movement and Hollywood.. case in point:


As Matt Power notes in this month's issue of Wired, hybrids get great gas mileage but it takes 113 million BTUs of energy to make a Toyota Prius. Because there are about 113,000 BTUs of energy in a gallon of gasoline, the Prius has consumed the equivalent of 1,000 gallons of gasoline before it reaches the showroom. Think of it as a carbon debt -- one you won't pay off until the Prius has turned over 46,000 miles or so.

Then there are the batteries. Mining costs of the metals used in the batteries, water pollution, and disposing of the dead ones when their short life cycle is completed.

GREEN sounds great, and is great PR, but it's utter RUBBISH in most cases.

flourbug
12-30-2008, 01:25 PM
The fact is FB is that the current situation proves my point very well, although Green is very trendy and popular, the uptake of the very things you mentioned in your former post are minimal.

We use resources in dribs and drabs. We need to save them the same way. A little here, a little there, and more where we can. The #1 use of energy is indoor dryers. If the 7000 families in my community were allowed to hang their laundry outside, the energy savings would be significant. The #1 use of water here is for our lawns. There's no need to use fresh filtered water when lake water would be better for the plants and the excess would flow back into the lake. These suggestions would be far more than "minimal".

So move then FB, No doubt not an option for you tho right?

Of course it's an option. But I won't be bringing my house and the regulations governing it along with me - it will remain here and another family will fill the rooms and be subject to the same restrictions. There is no net gain. It is only by CHANGING those regulations that we'll see meaningful protection of our resources.

Negative, you might of found my comments but they are still accurate, you are unwilling to move, (nor should you) but also unwilling to force the changes that might let you live as you want to. Too hard, expensive, risky, unreasonable, etc.

False. I found your comments contradict my own experience and leap to unfounded assumptions.

I have found people quite eager to preserve resources, even when they conflict with local zoning ordinances and regulations. Moving away does not change the regulations governing my home. People in elective office do not always have the ability to change the regulations either - they must comply with the various state and federal regulatory agencies and insurance companies in order to remain viable.

On the other hand a third world person that has just discovered the Mobile phone for the first time is now expected to forego any sort advancement in life so that the likes of us can enjoy the life that we have become accustomed to.

Where did that statement come from? I never said anything about the third world, nor has anyone else, and such comments have no relevance to this conversation.

This is the expectations we are wanting to enforce on the world under the auspices of the IPPC that foretell Armageddon due to AGW that is unproved and becoming more doubtful every month.

Who is WE? It certainly is not anyone here. So why do you continually grab unsubstantiated accusations out of thin air?

WE are the people that elected and enforce the very system you yourself have problems with now, WE are the people that conceived the purported problems...

Not at all true. Most of our regulations are the result of lawsuits or the threat of lawsuits. The rules are established by government agencies and enforced by same. Elected officials are told WHY a regulation exists but they do not have the power to remove that regulation. Which is why exercising our voting options will have no result on the dictates of the insurance company that says I cannot eat fish from the lake.

So who is to blame?

Blame for WHAT? This is not a blame game. We have all been born into a world that was quite well established without our presence.

Green might very well be very Popular, But how many supposed greens know the fossil fuel cost of producing a solar panel or wind turbine in respect to energy gained V energy spent?

You'd be surprised. I know very few people who fail to recognize advertising and public relations propaganda for what it really is.

How much energy is spent protesting the cost of energy or damage to the environment as opposed to not doing anything? when you take into account advertising, filming, printing, research, fuel, staff, editing, fund raising, and all the other associated cost's that go into just a single add on TV.

Right - which goes back to the SYSTEM we all live within which promotes and protects the use of as many commodities as possible both by individuals and industry.

This is all of course related to the still unproven supposition that Humans are responsible for the supposed rise in World temperature...

The best response is to repeat stephanie's comment, that started this debate between us :

"I have always thought the argument over global warming was stupid (yeah... both sides)... whether it is causing changing weather patterns or not... it is pretty stupid to argue over whether we should keep dumping unbreathable crap into the air."

I agree with her. We have the intelligence and resources to react to changes in our environment. But to grab on to GW as the REASON to reduce pollution is stupid. The fact that we are breathing the crap that is dumped into the air is reason enough to make changes NOW.

Ought Six
12-31-2008, 07:17 AM
fb:"The fact that we are breathing the crap that is dumped into the air is reason enough to make changes NOW."When I was a kid, Los Angeles had about 300 smog alert days a year, and only 60 clear days. The Cuyhoga River caught on fire because of the pollution. The Hudson was filled with human feces, garbage and floating dead fish. Today, Los Angeles has about 300 clear days and about 60 smog days a year. Both the Cuyhoga and Hudson are safe to swim in, and eat fish caught in those rivers.

We have made tremendous progress on polution from where we were forty years ago. Our biggest problems in America now are overdevelopment, overfishing and our increasing population (which is entirely due to immigration). Worldwide, the biggest problems are in developing nations, where severe pollution, clearcutting of whole forest, unrestricted stripmining, widespread poaching and unenforced fishing rules are laying waste to huge areas. Cities are so toxic in many developing nations they are literally killing their residents with toxic fogs, contaminated water and frequent epidemics. Streams of heavy metals, PCBs, acids, pesticides, herbicides, fertilzers and raw sewage pour into waterways and the ocean. The soil and water tables will be toxic for generations. Species are disappearing at a frightening rate.

Right now, the biggest problems are in the third world, as these nations try to achieve a better life for their people by cutting corners on environmental concerns. China is finding out just how shortsighted this really is. Other nations are close behind.

I think one of the biggest industries going forward in the twenty-first century will be land restoration; cleaning up toxic areas and returning them to a liveable state, or perhaps a natural state. This will be a whole new area of business and new technologies as we try to undo what we have done to the land.

flourbug
12-31-2008, 08:25 AM
FD, I'm nodding yes all the way through your post. I think we're around the same age. It was much, much worse when we were kids.

It was anti-religious to believe that the earth and everything in it wasn't there for us to USE. God gave it all to us. The land is vast, the resources endless. Take whatever you want. HE will provide more. To suggest otherwise got a slap across the head.

LadyBird Johnson started it all with her Beautify America campaign. She worked hard to replace roadside litter with flowers. People started to SEE the litter. They realized we were crapping in our own back yard.

In the early 70's the environmental movement got some teeth, thanks to an old Indian:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/ce/People_Start_Pollution_-_1971_Ad.jpg/350px-People_Start_Pollution_-_1971_Ad.jpg

That ad campaign brought in the idea that we were supposed to RESPECT the earth God gave us. It caught on, especially with the kids. I was in high school during that time and we started a big environmental movement in our town. Parents went along - you know, it was cute of the kids to take an interest. But those kids grew up and got very serious about ending the unchecked pollution common to that time.

Real changes were made both through legislation and public awareness. It wasn't just Cali that got cleaner. I remember NYC as always covered in an orange-gray smog. We had air inversion days when it wasn't safe to open your window or go outside. I sat on the banks of "Foam River" and "Rainbow Lake" and poked dead things with sticks. Exxon's refinery blew up and turned the sky to flame, and blew out every window in a 2 mile radius of the explosion. After that it was a Superfund site. It was a fun childhood.

I don't think its a matter of depriving third world countries of the same lovely experiences, but rather, urging them to learn through our mistakes as they rush headlong into making their own.

spinnerholic
12-31-2008, 09:11 AM
Southerncrosss, I have to agree with flourbug - you have a terribly negative take on what's really going on.

You ask "But how many supposed greens know the fossil fuel cost of producing a solar panel or wind turbine in respect to energy gained V energy spent?"

Wind energy isn't practical where we live but solar is, very much. And DH and I are very aware of the energy cost of making solar panels and the $ cost of the panels to us. You have ignored how much fossil fuel energy will be saved using solar panels and wind turbines tho. How come? You seem to be saying that because both solar and wind harvesting uses energy to produce that it doesn't make any sense to buy and use those technologies? We should just stick our heads in the sand and go right on using the same fossil fuel electricity that we have now because...well, why? That doesn't make any sense at all to me.

We are in the long process of solar powering our water well. Once installed, our fossil fuel bill will drop. And no, the batteries used with solar are not short lived at all. That technology has also vastly improved. When the batteries do need replacing, the old ones will be recycled and that will not make our air or water more polluted! Compared to the fossil fuel energy we have saved with our solar set up, the cost of recycling those batteries is next to nothing.

You said "Green might very well be very Popular..." Yes, going greener is very popular. I've lived in three areas of Virginia and every single one of them has wonderful recycling centers, set up by the state and local governments. People in each quite willingly sort their trash and deposit in the right recycling bins. You say to flourbug, generaly, that her going green and saving in drips and dabs doesn't amount to anything. Okay, agreed - one person or one family doing this doesn't amount to much. But when thousands and thousands of people go "green" every way they can, those drips and dabs sure add up. Something you don't seem to have considered. But that's exactly what is happening, here at least. Thousands and thousands and thousands of people, all "going green" in drips and dabs. Yes, it certainly does make a difference.

You say "How much energy is spent protesting the cost of energy or damage to the environment as opposed to not doing anything? when you take into account advertising, filming, printing, research, fuel, staff, editing, fund raising, and all the other associated cost's that go into just a single add on TV." So? We shouldn't be using that energy to protest waste and pollution? If people aren't willing to pay the cost of protesting, just how is change supposed to come about? Are we supposed to just sit here, not spend money on such foolishness and wait for the polluters to wake up and change their trashy ways? I can't believe you are serious about this! How else do protest movements bring about change without gathering people together, educate them about the problem or problems and take action - all without spending?

Do you have better ideas about life styles and bringing change about? If so, I'd really like to hear it. Just sitting around, throwing verbal rocks because change uses energy and protesting costs money really doesn't do very much good.

BirdGuano
12-31-2008, 12:11 PM
Here is what happens to your "recycled" e-waste and batteries that you drop off at the nice white and green
recycling kiosk near your house.


It's shipped (using fossile fuel) to China for this:
http://popsci.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/ewaste_recycling_china_4.jpg

southerncross
12-31-2008, 01:31 PM
The best response is to repeat stephanie's comment, that started this debate between us :

"I have always thought the argument over global warming was stupid (yeah... both sides)... whether it is causing changing weather patterns or not... it is pretty stupid to argue over whether we should keep dumping unbreathable crap into the air."

I agree with her. We have the intelligence and resources to react to changes in our environment. But to grab on to GW as the REASON to reduce pollution is stupid. The fact that we are breathing the crap that is dumped into the air is reason enough to make changes NOW.

Which was in response to a post about Sunspots if you recall.


The sad fact FB is that the GW brigade is using changes in our environment as a reason to restrict, control, enforce, govern and tax any and all enterprise under the guise of protecting the environment based upon unproven links to Global Warming.
It could also be seen as revenue raising by the companies involved, any opportunity to increase the bottom line is taken advantage of in this day and age and bought to the shareholder as a gain in their investment, whether that is an unproven gain for the environment or not. The cost's of saving the environment from GW are passed on to the consumer and the shareholders alike whether there is an advantage to the environment or not.

You yourself just posted that things have improved in your own lifetime in regard to the last forty years and the improvement in Local rivers etc, I would hazard a guess that the air has improved in line with the the water quality as well. The current debate on GW seems to have a life of it's own that is more political than ever and is based more on fiction and fear rather than fact.

Real changes were made both through legislation and public awareness. It wasn't just Cali that got cleaner. I remember NYC as always covered in an orange-gray smog. We had air inversion days when it wasn't safe to open your window or go outside. I sat on the banks of "Foam River" and "Rainbow Lake" and poked dead things with sticks. Exxon's refinery blew up and turned the sky to flame, and blew out every window in a 2 mile radius of the explosion. After that it was a Superfund site. It was a fun childhood.

I don't think its a matter of depriving third world countries of the same lovely experiences, but rather, urging them to learn through our mistakes as they rush headlong into making their own.

Tho I wouldn't personally quote it as a lovely experience the GW clan at this stage is wanting to deny the third world the opportunity to expand and develope at the same speed the current first world did. I ask WHY? Don't they deserve the same convenience with day to day life that we enjoy? Are they unable to perceive the same cost to the environment as us? ARE they unable to implement the known environmental safeguards that are recognized in current times? To me it is akin to passing the buck, a little like do as I say not as I do.
Even more so when it is the Governments of such Countries reliant on foreign aid that are asked to sign up to agreements that deny their people the same services and convenience's we take for granted.

flourbug
12-31-2008, 02:07 PM
SC, if your point is, GW is a bunch of hogwash.... I dunno. On one hand I know that what man does, CAN affect weather. Just stand in a mall parking lot on a hot summer day and watch the thunderhead form on top of you. Can man cover enough of the globe in concrete and asphalt to change weather patterns? Looking at Google earth, it seems likely to me. On the other hand, Mars is getting hotter, and AFAIK, we have yet to build malls and cookie cutter developments on that planet. So to my way of thinking its likely a little of this and a little of that.

Now, I have two dogs. I don't let them crap in my livingroom. But I don't refuse to live in 2' deep dog doodoo because it would decrease the value of my house - though a house full of dog crap would do that. I do it for my health and my family's health, and because it's just plain nicer to live in a clean home.

That's a how I feel about pollution. It does effect the earth, to some degree, but there are other, more personal reasons that keep me from polluting (and asking you to do the same).

As for the third world... Most of their industry is not home grown. First world corporations have been relocating their factories to the third world precisely because existing laws do not protect either the people or environment. One of the reasons we are cleaner is because they have taken the filth onto their own shoulders. Are we denying them opportunity, or denying them protection from the corrupt politicians who are trading their countrymen's lives and the health of future generations for their own personal enrichment? When you are dealing with people who turn a blind eye to slavery, children working in factories, men and women working 14 hour days for abusive bosses, toxins pouring into aquifers and onto the ground that grows the food the people need to survive... they aren't going to listen to ADVICE. There has to be agreements that lay out very serious incentives and penalties.

southerncross
12-31-2008, 02:27 PM
Do you have better ideas about life styles and bringing change about? If so, I'd really like to hear it. Just sitting around, throwing verbal rocks because change uses energy and protesting costs money really doesn't do very much good.


Yeah Spinner I do , people with the same attitude and thought's such as yourself and others here need to convert that energy into change in your local area's. People that recognize the need for change in local regulations need to have them changed, If you recognize the need for it when it stops you making an individual difference then gather others and force the changes you need.
Just drying your clothes outside wont cut it, Do some factual research into what you think might make a difference, Sun, Wind, Water etc. Most of the BIG names out there purporting to care are more wrapted up in supporting themselves than investing their time on a local level, so people need to take things into their own hands rather than investing their time with recruiting help from global names such as earthwatch, greenpeace etc.

I myself along with family have decided to opt out, we have the land and resources to become self sufficient with regard's to power and most foods etc, We have just planted a bio diesel crop that also provides a food crop for both people and animals. We have the option of hydro power, wind ,solar, or good old fuel, along with experimental hydrogen as well.
Most people don't have the options I do, Shit I doubt most people that read this have ever eaten an egg that came from a chook that ate bugs or grass for a living, or a steak from a beast that you patted as a calf and gutted as an adult steer.

I don't just throw verbal rock's Spinner, I probably live more of a Greener life than you ever will, It is just that I disagree with the Spin put on everyone that lives in the first world in this day and age, I don't agree with AGW, The science is wrong and does not add up, the recordings don't agree, the supposed consensus does not exist, the government taxes are too ready to happen, the everyday people are the fodder for a new income source that is baseless. THE SCIENCE IS NON EXISTANT , Nothing is outside the square of normal variance so far as the weather goes.
The commercial green is not the same green they would have you see in your heads.

southerncross
12-31-2008, 02:39 PM
As for the third world... Most of their industry is not home grown. First world corporations have been relocating their factories to the third world precisely because existing laws do not protect either the people or environment. One of the reasons we are cleaner is because they have taken the filth onto their own shoulders. Are we denying them opportunity, or denying them protection from the corrupt politicians who are trading their countrymen's lives and the health of future generations for their own personal enrichment? When you are dealing with people who turn a blind eye to slavery, children working in factories, men and women working 14 hour days for abusive bosses, toxins pouring into aquifers and onto the ground that grows the food the people need to survive... they aren't going to listen to ADVICE. There has to be agreements that lay out very serious incentives and penalties.

In short FB no-one cares, we buy their products everyday, day in day out, we turn a blind eye to everything, everyday, environment, conditions, slavery, quality, as long as the price is right, ten year old slave matters nothing so long as the handbag looks good and is the right price.
Sad thing is that it happens everyday, no-one gives a shit, as long as the price is right and people look good in society.

Ought Six
01-01-2009, 03:21 AM
fb:"In the early 70's the environmental movement got some teeth, thanks to an old Indian:"A bit of trivia: 'Iron Eyes Cody' is about as much American Indian as Christopher Columbus was. In fact, like his countryman Columbus, 'Cody' was really an Italian named Espera de Corti.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Eyes_Cody

flourbug
01-01-2009, 07:20 AM
06, cool trivia. Sounds like he was an American Indian trapped in a Sicilian body. ;)

rb.
01-01-2009, 10:47 AM
THE scariest photo I have seen on the internet is www.spaceweather.com, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity.

What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot.

SC, I've been looking at that page daily for years. I agree, the blank sun for so long is quite disturbing. I happen to think that our climate is part of a much larger, universe-wide, cycle. I think that with our "greenhouse gases", we may be just delaying an ice age, well...as well as poisoning ourselves. There are much bigger forces at work than our actions.

Sarrah
01-02-2009, 12:55 AM
I myself along with family have decided to opt out, we have the land and resources to become self sufficient with regard's to power and most foods etc, We have just planted a bio diesel crop that also provides a food crop for both people and animals. We have the option of hydro power, wind ,solar, or good old fuel, along with experimental hydrogen as well.
Most people don't have the options I do, Shit I doubt most people that read this have ever eaten an egg that came from a chook that ate bugs or grass for a living, or a steak from a beast that you patted as a calf and gutted as an adult steer.

I don't just throw verbal rock's Spinner, I probably live more of a Greener life than you ever will,


I am a non believer in mankind causing GW. I doubt GW as well but whatever. Weather is weather and that is life. According to my book. No idea what edition anyone else has.

But you get to sounding pretty Holier than tho there SC. Do you really live so green? Well good for you then. But it reads to me like just as soon as you have it all set up then you will be really green.

You say we have the land and resources. Does that mean you have now made enough money to go to the perfect land? You say "We have the option of hydro power, wind ,solar, or good old fuel, along with experimental hydrogen as well."
Right after you give a whoopin' to those who speak of going to solar etc.

So I use to enjoy your writings but this one I am not sure what's up with it. You want everyone to say Oh my southerncross. You are right. Anyone from the USA hasn't a clue. Anyone from North America is an idjit as are Europeans. Please sc we need to hear from you so we can mend our ways and follow along with you on a purer path.

At least that is how it reads to me. Oh and I'll put my green living up against your green living anyday. ;)

Dreamweaver
01-03-2009, 11:49 PM
Gosh! Now even over at the Huffington Post they have changed their minds. You know it's a dead issue when the left are willing to abandon it.

Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harold-ambler/mr-gore-apology-accepted_b_154982.html)


You are probably wondering whether President-elect Obama owes the world an apology for his actions regarding global warming. The answer is, not yet. There is one person, however, who does. You have probably guessed his name: Al Gore.
Mr. Gore has stated, regarding climate change, that "the science is in." Well, he is absolutely right about that, except for one tiny thing. It is the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind.
the rest is here
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harold-ambler/mr-gore-apology-accepted_b_154982.html

Ought Six
01-04-2009, 01:22 AM
What is really interesting is to see such an article in a leftist rag like the HuffPo. It looks like the political solidarity of the left behind anthroglobalwarming scam is showing some rather large cracks.

southerncross
01-05-2009, 07:53 AM
I am a non believer in mankind causing GW. I doubt GW as well but whatever. Weather is weather and that is life. According to my book. No idea what edition anyone else has.

But you get to sounding pretty Holier than tho there SC. Do you really live so green? Well good for you then. But it reads to me like just as soon as you have it all set up then you will be really green.

You say we have the land and resources. Does that mean you have now made enough money to go to the perfect land? You say "We have the option of hydro power, wind ,solar, or good old fuel, along with experimental hydrogen as well."
Right after you give a whoopin' to those who speak of going to solar etc.

So I use to enjoy your writings but this one I am not sure what's up with it. You want everyone to say Oh my southerncross. You are right. Anyone from the USA hasn't a clue. Anyone from North America is an idjit as are Europeans. Please sc we need to hear from you so we can mend our ways and follow along with you on a purer path.

At least that is how it reads to me. Oh and I'll put my green living up against your green living anyday. ;)

Holier than thou? Sarrah? PUHLEEEZE did you read the whole post?

Southerncrosss, I have to agree with flourbug - you have a terribly negative take on what's really going on.


Do you have better ideas about life styles and bringing change about? If so, I'd really like to hear it. Just sitting around, throwing verbal rocks because change uses energy and protesting costs money really doesn't do very much good.

FYI Sarrah the land has been in the Family for years, Solar is already part of it, the option part of my statement was meant as opposed to most others in regard's to energy sources other than mainstream and the greener part of my statement was in regards to not having to rely on the mainstream options for food. While a solar water pump is a start, I personally don't feel I need to explain myself to someone that see's my post as a Verbal Rock.

Even if I had made enough money to pay for the land and options by myself is it a crime against the environment or a negative if someone does so?

Sarrah I just dont think that at this stage the alternative options are within reach of 98% of the Worlds people when it comes to Green Alternatives. I live as green as it suit's Me, But I don't judge how others live their lives based on some hysterical notion that the world is about to end based on a suspect hypothesis that is unsound and unproven. The sad fact is that nearly all people in the first world are reliant on today's society to stay alive
That been said we raise 100% of our meat and poultry ourselves(Beef, Pork, Goat's, Chook's, Duck's, Turkey's what we don't manufacture we trade, (some Dairy and Cured meats), Most of our vegie's are home grown, We grow coffee and tea, our water comes straight out of a mountain stream, We have citrus and tropical fruit's, Sometimes we even turn the odd Skippy into dried Jerky. We brew our own Beer and Spirit's and even have a patch of Tobacco growing. Seafood is just down the Mountain and if it is inconvenient to grow or too much trouble we buy it elsewhere mainstream like everyone else.

My point with all this is that unlike "most people" the energy that goes into producing their foodstuff's, the packaging, the transport, the refrigeration, the staffing of the supermarkets, the travel to and from, The advertising and the bottom line expected from investors and shareholders makes My life a lot Greener than theirs.
If the Big power switch was turned off tomorrow we would get by, hook up the windmill, fuel up the generator, setup a hydro generator in the creek and run the computer instead of the hotwater system on the solar.

Green is a lot more than making sure you turn the lights off at night before you go to bed, take a look at the total cost of your life style. Add up the total carbon cost of all your everyday shopping from your plastic bags, your plastic wrapping and your plastic lives based on a society that you can not live without,ask yourself how long would you and yours survive if the power was turned off for good tomorrow? How would you eat? drink? work? The reliance on mainstream power is more than just a flick of a switch.

All the support in regards to AGW is becoming every day more like a religious sect rather than a rational argument based in reality, This whole argument after all was based on a post on sunspot activity.

Torange
01-11-2009, 09:46 AM
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/10/polar-sea-ice-changes-are-having-a-net-cooling-effect-on-the-climate/#more-4989

Polar Sea Ice Changes are Having a Net Cooling Effect on the Climate
10 01 2009
A guest post by Steven Goddard
One of the most widely discussed climate feedbacks is the albedo effect of polar sea ice loss. Ice has a relatively high albedo (reflectance) so a reduction in polar ice area has the effect of causing more shortwave radiation (sunlight) to be absorbed by the oceans, warming the water. Likewise, an increase in polar sea ice area causes more sunlight to be reflected, decreasing the warming of the ocean. The earths radiative balance is shown in the image below. It is believed that about 30% of the sunlight reaching the earth’s atmosphere is directly reflected - 20% by clouds, 6% by other components of the atmosphere, and 4% by the earth’s surface.
Radiation & Climate Slide
http://www.aer.com/scienceResearch/rc/rc.html
We all have heard many times that summer sea ice minimums have declined in the northern hemisphere over the last 30 years. As mentioned above, this causes more sunlight to reach the dark ocean water, and results in a warming of the water. What is not so widely discussed is that southern hemisphere sea ice has been increasing, causing a net cooling effect. This article explains why the cooling effect of excess Antarctic ice is significantly greater than the warming effect of missing Arctic ice.
Over the last 30 years Antarctic sea ice has been steadily increasing, as shown below.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot.png
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot.png

December is the month when the Antarctic sun is highest in the sky, and when the most sunlight reaches the surface. Thus an excess of ice in December has the maximum impact on the southern hemisphere’s radiative balance. In the Antarctic, the most important months are mid-October through mid-February, because those are months when the sun is closest to the zenith. The rest of the year there is almost no shortwave radiation to reflect, so the excess ice has little effect on the shortwave radiative (SW) balance.
This has been discussed in detail by Roger Pielke Sr. and others in several papers.
http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-222.pdf
http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-256.pdf
So how does this work? Below are the details of this article’s thesis.
1. As mentioned above, the Antarctic ice excess occurs near the December solstice when the sun is highest above the horizon. By contrast, the Arctic ice deficiency appears near the equinox - when the sun is low above the horizon. Note in the graph below, that Arctic ice reaches it’s minimum in mid-September - just when the sun is setting for the winter at the North Pole. While the September, 2008 ice minimum maps were dramatic, what they did not show is that there was little sunlight reaching the water that time of year. The deviation from normal did not begin in earnest until mid-August, so there were only a couple of weeks where the northern hemisphere SW radiative balance was significantly impacted. Thus the water in most of the ice-deficient areas did not warm significantly, allowing for the fast freeze-up we saw during the autumn.
The 2008 peak Arctic ice anomaly occurred near the equinox, when it had the minimum heating effect on the ocean.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
By contrast, the peak Antarctic ice anomaly occurred at the December solstice, when it had a maximum cooling effect, as shown below.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png
2. The next factor to consider is the latitude of the ice, which has a strong effect on the amount of solar insolation received. Arctic sea ice is closer to the pole than Antarctic sea ice. This is because of the geography of the two regions, and can be seen in the NSIDC images below.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent.png
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_daily_extent.png
Antarctic sea ice forms at latitudes of about 55-75 degrees, whereas most Arctic ice forms closer to the pole at latitudes of 70-90 degrees. Because Antarctic ice is closer to the tropics than Arctic ice, and the sun there reaches a higher angle above the horizon, Antarctic sea ice receives significantly more solar radiation in summer than Arctic sea ice does in its’ summer. Thus the presence or absence of Antarctic ice has a larger impact on the SW radiative balance than does the presence or absence of Arctic ice.
At a latitude of -65 degrees, the sun is about 40 degrees below the zenith on the day of the solstice. Compare that to early September negative anomaly peak in the Arctic at a latitude of 80 degrees, when the sun is more than 70 degrees below the zenith. The amount of solar radiation hitting the ice surface at those maxima is approximately 2.2 times greater in the the Antarctic than it is in the Arctic = cos(70) / cos(40) .
The point being again, that due to the latitude and date, areas of excess Antarctic ice reflect a lot of SW radiation back out into space, whereas deficient Arctic ice areas allow a much smaller quantity of SW radiation to reach the dark surface of water. Furthermore, in September the angle of incidence of the sun above the water is below the critical angle, so little sunlight penetrates the surface, further compounding the effect. Thus the Antarctic positive anomaly has a significantly larger effect on the earth’s SW balance than does the Arctic negative anomaly.
3. The next point is an extension of 2. By definition, excess ice is further from the pole than missing ice. Thus a 10% positive anomaly has more impact on the earth’s SW balance than does a 10% negative anomaly.
4. Due to eccentricity of the earth’s orbit, the earth is 3% closer to the sun near the December solstice, than it is during the June solstice. This further compounds the importance of Antarctic ice excess relative to Arctic ice deficiency.
All of these points work together to support the idea that so far, polar ice albedo feedback has been opposite of what the models have predicted. To date, the effect of polar albedo change has most likely been negative, whereas all the models predicted it to be positive. There appears to be a tendency in the climate community to discount the importance of the Antarctic sea ice increase, and this may not be appropriate.

Torange
01-11-2009, 09:50 AM
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/01/07/us-temperatures-2008-back-to-the-future/

January 7, 2009
U.S. Temperatures 2008: Back to the Future?
Filed under: Surface, Temperature History —

The data are just in from the National Climatic Data Center and they show that for the year 2008, the average temperature across the United States (lower 48 States) was 1.34ºF lower than last year, and a mere one-quarter of a degree above the long-term 1901-2000 average. The temperature in 2008 dropped back down to the range that characterized most of the 20th century.

Figure 1 shows the U.S. temperature history from 1895 to 2008. Notice the unusual grouping of warm years that have occurred since the 1998 El Niño. Once the 1998 El Niño elevated the temperatures across the country, they never seemed to return to where they were before. Proponents of catastrophic global warming liked to claim that is was our own doing through the burning of fossil fuels, but others were more inclined to scratch their heads at the odd nature of the record and wait to see what happened next.


Figure 1. U.S. average annual temperature history 1895-2008 (source: National Climatic Data Center, http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/cag3/hr-display3.pl)

You see, prior to 1998, there was little of note in the long-term U.S. temperature record. Temperatures fluctuated a bit from year to year, but the long-term trend was slight and driven by the cold string of years in the late 19th and early 20th century rather than by any warmth at the end of the record. In fact, from the period 1930 through 1997, the annual average temperature actually declined a hair—despite the on-going build-up of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. The only suggestion that “global warming” had involved the U.S. was to be found in the post-1997 period—a period unusual in that the temperatures went up and stayed up at near-record levels year after year. It was not so much that temperatures continued to climb after 1998, but just that they never fell. This grouping of warm years nearly doubled the apparent overall warming trend in U.S. temperatures (starting in 1895) from 0.07ºF/dedade (ending in 1997) to 0.13ºF/decade (ending in 2007). And with this doubling of the warming trend came the big push for emissions restrictions.

But now, 2008 comes along and has broken this warm stranglehold. Perhaps this is an indication that the conditions responsible for the unusual string of warm years have broken down—and maybe they weren’t a sudden apparition of anthropogenic global warming after all.

Only time will tell for sure. But, at least for now, things seem like they have returned to a more “normal” state of being.