We're changing our WunderBlogs. Learn more about this important update on our FAQ page.

Man Made Global Warming Part 1

By: sebastianjer , 9:08 PM GMT en Marzo 22, 2008


"It's like we're scurrying to get something done, like something's going to happen to discredit the whole global-warming thing,"

Rep. Ed Orcutt, R-Kalama.

"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster."

KevinVranes, climate scientist, University of Colorado talking about global warming hysteria, January, 2007.

One of the most overlooked aspects of climate change is land use changes. In my last blog I talked about rain forests and how their destruction adversely affected our climate. Deforestation is just one aspect of land use change that contributes to climate change, there are many more that also have an under-appreciated influence on climate. With all the miss-guided focus on CO2 as the big boogey man, many other man made influences are ignored or given far too little attention. Probably the most well known of all land use changes on global warming is the Urban Heat Island, (UHI).

UHI is relatively easy for anyone to understand and grasp. When you build a town, city or metropolis on land, which once were prairie, swamp, forest or some other natural landscape, it is bound to change the local and surrounding environment including the climate. Mostly we see it as temperature changes, obviously pavement and buildings not to mention car and industrial exhaust are going to generate more heat than grassland, trees and antelope. The EPA explains it very simply

>Heat islands form as vegetation is replaced by asphalt and concrete for roads, buildings, and other structures necessary to accommodate growing populations. These surfaces absorb - rather than reflect - the sun's heat, causing surface temperatures and overall ambient temperatures to rise.

There are other affects of the UHI, studies have shown that monthly rainfall is about 28% greater between 20-40 miles downwind of cities, compared with upwind. (Fuchs, Dale 2005)

Although much debated the IPCC states that the UHI actually has a minuscule affect on global temperatures. They say the overall affect of the UHI on global temperatures since 1900 has been .002 degC per decade (Fourth Assessment Report of IPCC 2007: p.244). As I said this is debated the paper, "Should light wind and windy nights have the same temperature trends at individual levels even if the boundary layer averaged heat content change is the same?" as an example.

Regardless it is probable that the UHI has no overall significant impact on global temperatures, remembering that oceans which are not known for urbanization account for 70 % of the earths surface area, and urban areas only account for about 1.5% of the entire earth surface.

Having said all that, when you measure global temperatures, where are the thermometers?


The above is a very obvious and easy to see historical representation of the UHI affect on temperature records. Which of these do you believe is a more accurate historical record of temperatures? If you were responsible for determining what the earth's temperature was doing what would you do with the above records?

Much of what my next several blogs are going to be drawn from some excellent web-sites, which I encourage anyone interested to visit. They are Coyote Blog dispatches from a small buisness,-Surface Station.org,-Watts Up With That?,- Climate Audit All of these are excellent sites, very informative and often amusing.

The following is from Coyote Blog


Let's say you had two compasses to help you find north, but the compasses are reading incorrectly. After some investigation, you find that one of the compasses is located next to a strong magnet, which you have good reason to believe is strongly biasing that compass's readings. In response, would you

1. Average the results of the two compasses and use this mean to guide you, or
2. Ignore the output of the poorly sited compass and rely solely on the other unbiased compass?

Most of us would quite rationally choose #2. However, Steve McIntyre shows us a situation involving two temperature stations in the USHCN network in which government researchers apparently have gone with solution #1. Here is the situation:

He compares the USHCN station at the Grand Canyon (which appears to be a good rural setting) with the Tucson USHCN station I documented here, located in a parking lot in the center of a rapidly growing million person city. Unsurprisingly, the Tucson data shows lots of warming and the Grand Canyon data shows none. So how might you correct Tucson and the Grand Canyon data, assuming they should be seeing about the same amount of warming? Would you average them, effectively adjusting the two temperature readings towards each other, or would you assume the Grand Canyon data is cleaner with fewer biases and adjust Tucson only? Is there anyone who would not choose the second option, as with the compasses?

The GISS data set, created by the Goddard Center of NASA, takes the USHCN data set and somehow uses nearby stations to correct for anomalous stations. I say somehow, because, incredibly, these government scientists, whose research is funded by taxpayers and is being used to make major policy decisions, refuse to release their algorithms or methodology details publicly. They keep it all secret! Their adjustments are a big black box that none of us are allowed to look into (and remember, these adjustments account for the vast majority of reported warming in the last century).

We can, however, reverse engineer some of these adjustments, and McIntyre does. What he finds is that the GISS appears to be averaging the good and bad compass, rather than throwing out or adjusting only the biased reading. You can see this below. First, here are the USHCN data for these two stations with only the Time of Observation adjustment made (more on what these adjustments are in this article).

As I said above, no real surprise - little warming out in undeveloped nature, lots of warming in a large and rapidly growing modern city. Now, here is the same data after the GISS has adjusted it:

You can see that Tucson has been adjusted down a degree or two, but Grand Canyon has been adjusted up a degree or two (with the earlier mid-century spike adjusted down). OK, so it makes sense that Tucson has been adjusted down, though there is a very good argument to be made that it should be been adjusted down more, say by at least 3 degrees**. But why does the Grand Canyon need to be adjusted up by about a degree and a half? What is biasing it colder by 1.5 degrees, which is a lot? The answer: Nothing. The explanation: Obviously, the GISS is doing some sort of averaging, which is bringing the Grand Canyon and Tucson from each end closer to a mean.

This is clearly wrong, like averaging the two compasses. You don't average a measurement known to be of good quality with one known to be biased. The Grand Canyon should be held about the same, and Tucson adjusted down even more toward it, or else thrown out. Lets look at two cases. In one, we will use the GISS approach to combine these two stations-- this adds 1.5 degrees to GC and subtracts 1.5 degrees from Tucson. In the second, we will take an approach that applies all the adjustment to just the biases (Tucson station) -- this would add 0 degrees to GC and subtract 3 degrees from Tucson. The first approach, used by the GISS, results in a mean warming in these two stations that is 1.5 degrees higher than the more logical second approach. No wonder the GISS produces the highest historical global warming estimates of any source!


Perhaps if you have read this and followed it closely, you can see why skeptics are skeptical, lol. If you were also aware of the fact that the scientist, James Hansen, is in charge of GISS is perhaps the world's strongest proponent of the enhanced greenhouse gas theory, it should raise questions. As many of us believe, man made global warming may be more man made than you think.

"Humanity today, collectively, must face the uncomfortable fact that industrial civilization itself has become the principal driver of global climate. If we stay our present course, using fossil fuels to feed a growing appetite for energy-intensive life styles, we will soon leave the climate of the Holocene, the world of human history. The eventual response to doubling pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 likely would be a nearly ice-free planet.

The stakes, for all life on the planet, surpass those of any previous crisis. The greatest danger is continued ignorance and denial, which could make tragic consequences unavoidable."

The Reverend...Uh, I mean Dr. James Hansen

Meanwhile in reality

Recently someone commented on the above graph saying that it started at an obvious outlier year of 1998. True so for your viewing pleasure I'll also post these.

and the longer view


"The science of AGW can withstand challenges if it's accurate, and if it's not, it needs to be challenged."

Brett Anderson
Senior Meteorologist AccuWeather

( The Flat Earth Society)

01 Reid Bryson - Called the father of modern scientific climatology - Global Warming? Some common sense thoughts
02 Freeman J Dyson-professor emeritus of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. -Freeman Dyson on Global Warming Part 1 of 2 - Freeman Dyson on Global Warming Part 2 of 2 -The Science and Politics of Climate-HERETICAL THOUGHTS ABOUT SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
03 Jan Veizer-Distinguished University Professor Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa Esteemed Ottawa scientist says cosmic rays, not greenhouse gases, cause global warming
04 Syun-Ichi Akasofu - Founding Director International Arctic Research Center - Misleading Information on Global Warming -A Clash between the View of Physicists and of Naturalists
05 Hans Erren- International Institute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Sciences, Division of Exploration Geophysics, Delft.
06 Neil Frank - Former Director NHC
07 David H Douglass-Professor of Physics,University of Rochester- A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
08 Gordon Swaters
09 John Christy - Professor and Director Earth System Science Center, NSSTC-
University of Alabama in Huntsville- My Nobel Moment
10 Peter Stilbs-Professor Physical Chemistry at KTH -Global Warming - Scientific Controversies in Climate Variability
11James Spann
12 Claude Allegre - French Minister of National Education, Research and Technology
13 Chris de Freitas -Associate Professor, Deputy Director of School,Environmental climatology,The University of Auckland-Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous?
14 Christopher Landsea - Hurricane Research Division Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory
NOAA-Letter of resignation from IPCC
15 Robert Geigenngack-Professor Department of Earth and Environmental Science University of Pennsylvania- Al Gore Is a Greenhouse Gasbag
16 William Cotton -Professor The Department of Atmospheric Science CSU -Global Climate Change: A Skeptics Perspective
17 James O'Brien- Former Director, Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies at Florida State University -Atlantic Hurricanes: The True Story-Skeptics Speak Out Video
18 Simon Brassell
19 Danial Botkin -Professor Emeritus, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara. Science and soothsaying
20 Petr Chylek- Senior Scientist , Space and Remote Sensing Sciences, Los Alamos National Laboratory and Department of Physics and Atmospheric Sciences, Dalhousie University -Limits on climate sensitivity derived from recent satellite and surface observations - Greenland warming of 1920-1930 and 1995-2005
21 Antonio Zichichi- President of the World Federation of Scientists
22 Henrik Svensmark- director of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research, at the Danish Space Research Institute-Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth's Climate
23 Richard S. Lindzen'- MIT Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences - Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm? -The Fluid Envelope-A CASE AGAINST CLIMATE ALARMISM -Climate of Fear
24 Anthony Lupo - Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science the University of Missouri Columbia. -Global Warming Is Natural, Not Man-Made-Hot Air
25 Marcel Leroux- Professor of Climatology at Jean Moulin University in France, and the director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risk, and Environment.-There’s No Global Warming, Because There’s No Global Climate
26 George Kukla- EGU Milutin Milankovic Medallist 2003
27 Edward J Wegman-Professor at the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University -Congressional Testimony on "Hockey Stick"
28 Boris Winterhalter -Retired Senior Research Scientist and Coordinator at the Geological Survey of Finland.-My views on Global Warming and especially on the man-made hype
29 Christoph Borel-Senior Technical Manager, Ball Aerospace
30G. Cornelis van Kooten-Professor of Economics and Canada Research Chair in Environmental Studies & Climate, University of Victoria
31 Gerhard Kramm- Professor University of Alaska Fairbanks, College of Natural Science and Mathematics-Global warming and Fairbanks’ power solution
32 Rafael Wust -Professor Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University
33 Robert M. Carter- Research Professor at James Cook University- Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 1 of 4 -Part 2 of 4- Part 3 of 4- Part 4 of 4
34 George Taylor -State of Oregon Climatologist- A Consensus About Consensus
35 Patrick J. Michaels-Past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and former program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society-Not So Hot
36 Geoff Austin -Professor The Department of Physics The University of Auckland New Zealand
37 Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen- Research Professor at James Cook University
38 Joseph D’Aleo-former Professor of Meteorology at Lyndon State College and the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel-Warmest Year Declaration Full of Pitfalls!-Skeptics Speak Out Video
39 Nir Shaviv-Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing?-The inconvenient truth about the Ice core Carbon Dioxide Temperature Correlations
40 William Gray-Professor Emeritus CSU Department of Atmospheric Science - Hurricanes and Climate Change
41 S. Fred Singer-Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University and professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia- Testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation - Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate
42 Roy Spencer-received the NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal in 1991, the MSFC Center Director’s Commendation in 1989, and the American Meteorological Society’s Special Award in 1996.- NOT THAT SIMPLE GLOBAL WARMING: WHAT WE DON'T KNOW- Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations-The Sloppy Science of Global Warming-interview
43 Mike McConnell -Forest Hydrologist, U.S. Forest Service - Open Letter to Dr. Robert Davila and Gallaudet Community
44 Indur M. Goklany- US Department of the Interior
45 Ian D. Clark -Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
46 Oliver W. Fraunfeld- CIRES-Contributing Author to the IPCC Working Group 1 Fourth Assessment Report.
47 Robert E Davis- Professor Atmospheric Sciences University of Virginia- Climate Cycle or Climate Psychic?
48 R. Timothy Patterson -Director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre - Read the Sunspots- The Geologic Record and Climate Change
49 David R. Legates -Director of the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware. State Climatologist for Deleware -Where's the Data?-Revising 1,000 Years of Climate History
50 Eric Posmentier - Professor Earth Sciences Dartmouth University
51Ben Herman - Professor University of Arizona's Department of Atmospheric Physics
52 Robert C. Balling Jr.-Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University - Inconvenient Truths Indeed
53 Thomas Schmidlin -Professor of Geography at Kent State University and a Certified Consulting Meteorologist.
54 Willem de Lange - Professor Department of Earth & Ocean Sciences, University of Waikato
55 Don J. Easterbrook -Professor Emeritus Department of Geology Western Washington University -Global warming: Are we heading for global catastrophy in the coming century?
56 Stewart Franks -Associate Professor in Environmental Engineering,The University of Newcastle
57 Robert L. Kovach - Professor Emeritus of Geophysics, Stanford University
58 Fred Michel -Director, Institute of Environmental Science Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University- Letter to the editor of the Toronto Star
59 Robert H. Essenhigh - Bailey Professor, Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University- Does CO2 really drive global warming?
60 Philip Lloyd - UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author on the Technical Report on Carbon Capture & Storage
61 Charles Wax -Professor of Geography Mississippi State University and State Climatologist for Mississippi
62 Nils-Axel Mörner - Retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University-Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud
63 Salomon Kroonenberg - Full Professor of Geology at the Department of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology
64 Willie Soon-Physicist at the Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics -What is the Earth's 20th Century Temperature Trend?
65 Jay H. Lehr -Science Director with the Heartland Institute and President of Environmental Education Enterprises
66 Arthur V. Douglass Retired Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department Creighton University
67 Garth Paltridge-Emeritus Professor, former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern
Ocean Studies, and CEO of the Antarctic Co-operative Research Center- The Politicised Science of Climate Change
68 Lee C.Gerhard-Senior Scientist Emeritus, Kansas Geological Survey, University of Kansas-Geologic Constraints on Global Climate Variability
69 Ole Humlum-Professor of Physical Geography at the Institute of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Climate 4 You web site (excellent)
70 Olavi Kärner Research Scientist atmospheric science, Tartu Observatory, Estonia- TEMPORAL VARIABILITY IN LOCAL AIR TEMPERATURE SERIES SHOWS NEGATIVE FEEDBACK
71 Gerald E Marsh- retired physicist, Argonne National Laboratory,-Climate Change: The Sun’s Role
72 Frederick Wolf -Professor of Physics, KEENE STATE COLLEGE
73 Tom Victor Segalstad-Associate Professor of Resource- and Environmental Geology at the University of Oslo.-CO2 and the "Greenhouse Effect" Doom
74 Bjarne Andresen-Professor of Physics Ørsted Laboratory, University of Copenhagen-Global temperature -- politics or science?
75 John T. Everett.-Former Director of NOAA Fisheries Division of Research, Member National Academy of Sciences Panel on Ecosystem Indicators of Climate Change, IPCC lead author and reviewer- Congressional Testimony, April 2007
76 Chris Walcek-Atmospheric scientist and Professor, University of Albany (N.Y.); Senior Research Associate at the Atmospheric Sciences Research Center-Chris Walcek Interview
77 James P. Koermer -Atmospheric scientist and Professor of Meteorology and the director of the Meteorological Institute at Plymouth State University
78 Jos de Latt- Specialist in atmospheric composition and climate research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute-Mixing Politics and Science in Testing the Hypothesis That Greenhouse Warming is Causing a Global Increase in Hurricane Intensity,
79 William Kininmonth - former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review - Don't be Gored into going along
80 Yuri A. Izrael - Vice-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Former first vice-president of the World Meteorological Organization,-UNEP Sasakawa Prize
81 Frederick Seitz- Former president of the National Academy of Sciences and former president of Rockefeller University. (died 3-02-08)
82 R. W. Gauldie- Research Professor, Hawaii Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawaii at Manoa
83 Ryan N. Maue-Researcher Department of Meteorology, Center for Ocean-Atmosphere Prediction Studies Florida State University- Inconvenient 2007 Tropical News
84 Richard S. Courtney- Professor Geography Kutztown University of Pennsylvania-Biofuels: a solution worse than the
problem they try to address?

85 Denis G. Rancourt- Full Professor Department of Physics. Member of the Ottawa-Carleton Institute for Physics, Member of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre
86 Ian Pilmer-Professor of Mining Geology Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Adelaide -Global warming a damp squib
87 Brian Pratt -Professor Sedimentology, Paleontology-Geology University of Saskatchewan
88 Nicola Scafetta-Research Scientist, Department of Physics, Duke University-Is climate sensitive to solar variability?
89 Nathan Paldor- Professor of dynamical meteorology and physical oceanography, Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Institute of Earth Sciences; The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
90 Antón Uriarte-Professor of climatology of the Basque Country, Spain
91 Mel Goldstein Professor Meteorology Western Connecticut State University, WTNH Hartford CN
92 Howard Hayden- Professor of Physics Emeritus University of Connecticut Skeptics Speak Out
93 Richard C. Wilson, Senior Research Scientist, Columbia University’s Center for Climate Systems Research, Principle Investigator ACRIM Science Computing Facility
94 Lance Endersbee-Emeritus Professor former Dean of Engineering and former Pro-Vice Chancellor at Monash University in Melbourne,Australia.-Global climate change has natural causes:
95 Craig James-Chief Meteorologist and the Director of Weather Services, WOOD Grand Rapids Michigan
96 John K. Sutherland-Chief Scientist, Edutech Enterprises- Anthropogenically driven Global Warming (AGW): Some pro and con comments97 James A. Peden- Former Atmospheric Physicist at the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh and Extranuclear Laboratories in Blawnox, Pennsylvania- Editorial: The Great Global Warming Hoax?
98 Patrick Moore- Founding Member and former Director of Greenpeace International
99 John Coleman-Founder of Weather Channel,KUSI San Diego CA-Comments on Global Warming
100 K. Russell DePriest, - nuclear engineer at Sandia National Laboratories

The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

Log In or Join

You be able to leave comments on this blog.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 218 - 168

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5Blog Index

218. sebastianjer
3:32 PM GMT en Abril 19, 2008
Hi Vort and JP

Sorry been busy, glad to see you drop by. Really pisses me off too Vort. It is sad that they would do such a thing, oh well

Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
216. jphurricane2006
1:20 PM GMT en Abril 18, 2008
morning jer, well great article at 202, and I agree with Kristen, its a natural process, but I guess its an epidemic lol, thanks to the media

I love it when someone throws out stats saying, oooo this was the 2nd warmest March on record and blah blah blah, but what they forget is how small of a time frame record keeping has been around compared to the age of the planet.
Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
214. sebastianjer
11:19 AM GMT en Abril 18, 2008

Interesting Article

Plankton Hold Surprise for Climate Research

...."Nobody's thought through these new effects," Doney said.

"At the moment, with the information we have, it's just not possible to say what this means in terms of carbon," Iglesias-Rodriguez agreed. "But it's very important information for the models, because they are using the opposite information to what we find."

Doney agreed. "A lot of conclusions have been drawn from a handful of studies, and the ocean has a lot of surprises for us."
Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
213. latitude25
1:49 AM GMT en Abril 18, 2008
"Did I get it right?"

LOL, yes James got it right.

Jer, the biggest problem we have right now is the car companies.
They fell for all this crap, and put tons of money into developing cars/engines that would burn weeds and food. bio-fool

Now the car companies have started a big campaign and ads to promote bio-fool. Even though they know it's a farce.

You've got to love the rampant ignorance of the eco-whackos.
Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
212. sebastianjer
12:04 AM GMT en Abril 18, 2008
Hi Gator
Sure is Governor wants to not tax gas for summer months, would save .15 s gsllon. Good idea I believe. Getting ready to update blog

Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
211. Gatorxgrrrl
11:56 PM GMT en Abril 17, 2008
Just paid 3.56 for regular gas, unbelievable!
Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
210. sebastianjer
11:32 PM GMT en Abril 17, 2008
Dr. Kesten Green, of the Business and Economics Forecasting Unit at Monash University, explains why he is skeptical of the forecasting methods of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

"" alt="" />
Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
209. sebastianjer
9:21 PM GMT en Abril 17, 2008
Now this is funny, for those whoe do not know this is James A. Peden

For the Children

Jim Peden has a very funny comment to this post on Anthony Watts blog. Since it is sometimes hard to find a comment in the middle of a long string, I will reproduce it here (I hope Jim does not mind). I will also refer you to Jim's web site, where he has a long and excellent summary of a number of the issues with global warming catastrophism.

The essential elements of an effective global panic consist of two parts:

First, one needs to identify a potential source of a world-wide catastrophe. Second, one needs to convince everyone that that actions of man are about to trigger that catastrophe. This is best illustrated by this following theoretical example:

It is well known that a “Super Volcano” lies under Yellowstone park. This volcano went undetected for many years, because its sheer size is so large it escaped notice when looking for something more familiar in size.

The consequences of another eruption of this monster can be fairly well predicted. First, it will simply blow away a fair-sized piece of Montana, and falling ash will bury cities for many miles beyond. The atmospheric ejecta will blanket a large portion of the earth, blocking out the sun and producing a “nuclear winter” for a significant portion of mankind. Crop failures and other effects of rapid cooling will lead to the death of untold billions of both human and animal inhabitants.

In fact, there are some significant geothermal and other indicators in Yellowstone that suggest this monster is again on the move. This has sparked at least one major television presentation discussing the potential for another eruption and the obvious catastrophe that would follow if it does. But this information in itself has not created much in the way of panic. Most citizens are resigned to the fact that mega-disasters, should they occur, can not be prevented by human action because they are part of the natural behavior of the planet and worrying excessively can not change anything. Don’t worry, be happy, we’re all in this together.

To turn the Yellowstone Super Volcano into a world-wide panic, we need a convincing piece of junk science as a trigger. Taking our cue from the “man-made CO2 is causing global warming” hoax, here’s one distinct possibility as far as Yellowstone is concerned:

Professor Wilfred Brimstone at the University of Mongolia has developed a model which clearly shows the buildup of human population on both the east and west coast of the United States is putting excessive pressure on both sides of the North American plate. The accumulation of vast amounts of additional weight in the form of people, buildings, automobiles, and other man-made items is creating such an excess of plate pressure at the edges, that magma is being forced laterally toward the center of the country, and in particular towards a weak crust zone in Montana centered at Yellowstone park. In the same manner as popping a pimple by squeezing from two opposing sides, the “coastal weight effect” is squeezing the magma beneath the crust and causing a rapid pressure buildup of the Yellowstone Super Volcano. Man’s greed to live near the ocean has tipped the balance of nature, and it is now only a matter of time until Yellowstone blows its top.

….. unless we take quick action to arrest and reverse this process.

It is critically important to immediately evacuate everyone from both coasts, and dismantle all heavy structures and begin transporting them to the center of the country, redistributing them evenly over a wide area until the overall plate pressure has been suitably equalized and the danger has passed. Senator Barbara Boxer has introduced a bill which will impose a stiff tax on any item weighing more than six ounces in order to pay for the weight relocation. A new $100 million Center for Building Weight Studies is currently under construction in Santa Barbara.

If you do not want to be dislocated from your present home, former Vice President Al Gore has just formed a new company, Relocation Unlimited, in which you can invest in “weight offsets” and not have to move. For a price, Mr. Gore will arrange have an equivalent weight of ordinary dirt dug up and relocated instead of your own 3 bedroom ranch.

It is also of immediate importance that we educate our children in the nature of this pending disaster that their parents’ over-building has created. Children everywhere should quickly make costumes that resemble blocks of concrete and conduct ritualistic marches in the general direction of the central Midwest. This, combined with the waving of signs and the singing of Kumbaya will quickly spread the word throughout the public school system and draw the attention of the mainstream media which is also critical to this effort. Working together, we can all stem this rapidly looming disaster.

incidentally, you can purchase your STOP YELLOWSTONE NOW t-shirts by visiting our online store, and our book by the same name is available on Amazon.com. A prime time television special is currently in production.

Did I get it right?

James A. Peden
Shoreham, Vermont on a chilly Sunday Morning


Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
208. sebastianjer
8:57 PM GMT en Abril 17, 2008
Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
207. sebastianjer
12:27 PM GMT en Abril 17, 2008
Morning Vort and MLC

Off to work, too much of it lately, lol. Talk about complaining about your blessings. Anyways have a good one

Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
206. moonlightcowboy
12:09 PM GMT en Abril 17, 2008
G'morning, JER. Another "accurate" surface station temp! lol, have a good day, friend!
Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
204. sebastianjer
12:07 PM GMT en Abril 17, 2008
Fairness In Climate Science Reporting - An Example Of Bias
Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
203. sebastianjer
12:00 PM GMT en Abril 17, 2008
How not to measure temperature, part 59

Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
202. sebastianjer
2:39 AM GMT en Abril 16, 2008

Teenage Skeptic Takes on Climate Scientists
Morning Edition, April 15, 2008 · If you're a scientist trying to convince people they are making the world warmer, Kristen Byrnes is your worst nightmare. She's articulate, intelligent, she has a Web site, and one day her people will be running the world. Her people, meaning 16-year-olds.

Kristen's Web site, "Ponder the Maunder," has made her a celebrity among climate skeptics. After she posted a critique of Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth, her Web site got so many hits the family's internet service provider sent them a warning.

Her story may dismay mainstream scientists, but plenty of people are friendly to her ideas.

In one poll last year, only about 50 percent of people agreed humans were contributing to global warming. The other half either disagreed, weren't sure or didn't believe the Earth was warming in the first place.

"I don't remember how old I was when I started getting into global warming," Kristen says. "In middle school I remember everyone was like: 'Global warming! The world is going to end!' Stuff like that ... so I never really believed in it."

On the March afternoon I visited, there was still snow on the ground in Maine, and Kristen padded around the house wearing green furry slippers. She earns top grades in school. (Her step-dad, Mike Carson, proudly shows them off.)

And she has a quality scientists try to cultivate: she is skeptical. Has someone made a claim? She wants to see the data.

So about a year ago, when she was 15, she started to look at the scientific evidence. When she got confused, she consulted Mike.

Soon they had printed out a mound of technical documents from the Internet.

Kristen was convinced by the skeptics and she began to write, summarizing their arguments adding her own touches. Yes, she says, the Earth is warming. But no, humans aren't causing it. She says it's part of the natural climate cycle.

At some point, Mike and Kristen decided to post her work online.

"I felt it was important to inform people that this wasn't completely true," Kristen says. "A public service to let people know."

Mike set up the Web site and Kristen's mom, Tammy Byrnes, typed. Soon "Ponder the Maunder" was born. Kristen admits the title is a little obscure. It's a reference to a dip in solar activity in the 1600s known as the "Maunder minimum."

Her Web site includes charts of temperature records, El Nino indexes, isotope measurements. Skeptics loved it: A 15-year-old attacking the mainstream scientific view.

"It took off like wildfire," Mike says, "But that was nothing compared to when her Al Gore critique went up."

Kristen had no fear. She took on Al Gore the Nobel laureate, Academy Award winner and former vice president. She went after Jim Hansen, one of NASA's top climate scientists. E-mail poured in, mostly from skeptics happy a young person had taken up the cause.

"I got a letter in the mail on my birthday from a senator," she says.

Someone runs off into another room to track it down and returns with an envelope from the office of Sen. James Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican famous for calling global warming a hoax.

"Dear Kristen," the letter begins. "Thank you so much for your letter and e-mail and for your kind words. I appreciate your help in the fight against global warming alarmism. You are a common sense young lady and an inspiration to me. I want you to keep up the good work. We are winning."

Mainstream scientists would argue that many of the issues on her Web site are red herrings or have been put to rest — and Kristen did get emails from people challenging her science. But after a few exchanges, she says, her opponents backed down. "A few of them gave up and figured they can't win against a 15-year-old," she says. Mike laughs as she says this.

Kristen says when her determination sagged, Mike encouraged her.

"Kristen! MOTIVATION!" she remembers him saying. Mike is deeply skeptical humans are behind global warming and pulls up a graph on the computer to help make the case.

And the truth is, for people who want to get down into the details, climate change science can get very hairy. There are oceans to consider, which can absorb heat, water vapor and cloud cover to account for.

Much of the evidence comes from detailed computer models. Scientists disagree on some of the details. A handful do not think the case has been made. But the overwhelming consensus is that humans are causing global warming, and the consequences could be serious.

Despite Kristen's online celebrity, she doesn't talk about climate change much with her friends.

During lunch at a local chowder house with her friend Chrissy Flanders, they talked about food and friends and clothes.

So it came as somewhat of a surprise when Chrissy piped up to say she disagreed with Kristen on climate change.

"I think it's partly because of humans," she says. Asked why she believes that she says she doesn't know. Kristen chimes in: "She just believes what everyone else is making her believe."

It's probably fair to say that most people — even those who have strong opinions about global warming — couldn't make a strong scientific argument for why they believe what they believe.

Most of us delegate, decide to believe someone we trust. We don't actively seek out the other side. We probably wouldn't know what to make of it, or how to reconcile the two. Who has time? Or the expertise?

Kristen is getting out of the climate-change business. She thinks she would like to become an architect — maybe even build energy-efficient "green" buildings.

She does not see herself as an environmentalist, though. She says that makes her think of hippies.
Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
201. sebastianjer
12:16 PM GMT en Abril 15, 2008
Thanks MLC
The beat goes on. I guess mass starvation is also a cure for global warming. Here is an interesting article.

Lights out?
Björn Lomborg

April 12, 2008 10:00 AM


When it comes to all things "green", common sense seems to have been abandoned. Our failure to think clearly about such matters would be amusing if the potential consequences were not so serious.

Consider the recent "lights out" campaign that supposedly should energise the world about the problems of climate change by urging citizens in 27 big cities to turn out their lights for an hour. With scores of companies and municipalities signing up, and even the monarchies of Denmark and Sweden turning off the lights in their many palaces, the World Wildlife Fund quickly called it an amazing success. Newspapers around the world dutifully wrote feel-good stories about how engaged environmentalists celebrated as the lights went out around the world.

Nobody, it seemed, wanted to spoil the party by pointing that the event was immensely futile, that it highlighted a horrible metaphor, or that it caused much higher overall pollution.

Danish newspapers - coincidentally in the native country of the story of the Emperor's New Clothes - happily quoted the WWF regarding the event's overwhelming success. But the entire savings (assuming people didn't use more energy later in the night to make up for lost time) amounted to just ten tons of CO2 - equivalent to just one Dane's annual emissions for a full year. Measuring the avoided climate impact for the indefinite future, the entire combined efforts of the queen, many companies, and the city halls of Copenhagen and other cities yielded $20 worth of good.

Are pointless gestures really the way to secure a greener future? And what sort of message does turning out the lights send?

As some conservative commentators like to point out, the environmental movement has indeed become a dark force, not metaphorically, but literally. Indeed, urging us to sit in darkness will probably only make us realise how unlikely it is that we will ever be persuaded to give up the advantages of fossil fuels.

Curiously, nobody suggested that the "lights out" campaign should also mean no air conditioning, telephones, Internet, movies, hot food, warm coffee, or cold drinks - not to mention the loss of security when street lights and traffic signals don't work. Perhaps recruiting support would have been much harder had the Danes also had to turn off their heat.

Ironically, the lights-out campaign also implies much greater energy inefficiency and dramatically higher levels of air pollution. When asked to extinguish electric lights, most people around the world would turn to candlelight instead. Candles are cozy and seem oh-so-natural. Yet, when measured by the light they generate, candles are almost 100 times less efficient than incandescent light bulbs, and more than 300 times less efficient than fluorescent lights.

Moreover, candles create massive amounts of highly damaging indoor particulate air pollution, which in the United States is estimated to kill more than a 100,000 people each year. Candles can easily create indoor air pollution that is 10-100 times the level of outdoor air pollution caused by cars, industry, and electricity production. Measured against the relative decrease in air pollution from the reduced fossil fuel energy production, candles increase health-damaging air pollution 1,000-10,000-fold.

Unfortunately, the lights-out campaign exemplifies the state of much of our environmental debate. We are spoon fed stories that fit preconceived frameworks. For example, the recent breakup of a massive glacier in the Antarctic supposedly proves the mounting effects of global warming. But we don't hear that the area was ice-free, possibly just some 400 years ago, without the help of global warming. We don't hear that the Wilkins glacier makes up less than 0.01% of Antarctica. Nor do we hear that the Antarctic is experiencing record sea ice coverage since satellite measurements began.

Likewise, we all heard Al Gore talking about the dramatic hurricane years of 2004 and 2005, but we've heard almost nothing about the lack of hurricane damage in 2006 and 2007. The insurance company Lloyds of London has now begun to fret that the absence of natural disasters is putting a squeeze on its premiums.

We are endlessly presented with stories of soaring temperatures, but over the past year we've experienced the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, and it's been downward. In January, Hong Kong was gripped by its second-longest cold spell since 1885. This year's storms in central and southern China produced the worst winter weather in a half-century. Snow fell on Baghdad for the first time in living memory.

When we get a distorted picture we are likely to make wrong choices. Nowhere is this clearer than with the lights-out campaign. Doing virtually no good while dramatically decreasing energy efficiency and increasing air pollution merely jeopardises any hope for enlightened public policy.

Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
200. moonlightcowboy
4:03 AM GMT en Abril 15, 2008
Bush releases $200 million in emergency food aid

By Matt Spetalnick Mon Apr 14, 6:05 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Monday ordered the release of $200 million in U.S. emergency food aid to help alleviate food shortages in developing countries in Africa and elsewhere, the White House said. Bush took action a day after top finance and development officials from around the world called for urgent steps to stem rising food prices, warning that social unrest would spread unless the cost of basic staples was contained. "This additional food aid will address the impact of rising commodity prices on U.S. emergency food aid programs and be used to meet unanticipated food aid needs in Africa and elsewhere," the White House said in a statement.

Bush directed the agriculture secretary to draw down on the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust, a food reserve for emergency needs in the developing world, to free up about $200 million through the U.S. Agency for International Development. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino had said Bush, who was briefed about the food crisis during a cabinet meeting earlier on Monday, was "very concerned" and asked senior aides to look into ways the United States could help ease shortages. Washington provided more than $2.1 billion in international food aid in fiscal 2007. (MORE)

...amazing! We can shoot a bullseye on a target at a rock several thousand miles into space, split a freaking atom, and declare that we're destroying the planet in-part simply by exhaling! Yet, our scientists, our politicians, our leaders can't muster the where-with-all, enough cumulative brain energy to discern the amount, distribution, and pricing of food required to feed people around the world!

Brilliant! Let's turn food-producing efforts into an energy-making scam that actually requires more energy to produce than the energy it yields. Or maybe, that's the thought process anyway - sustainability? (There's that word again!) Sixteen million children dying each year from starvation isn't quite enough. Crank the death toll numbers up while pretending to "save the planet!" LOL, but not really. It's actually quite sad. And, meanwhile, the only ones getting "fat" are the ones perpetrating the scam. Oh, and another word to consider in this scam - "subsidies!" Now, go figure!
Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
199. sebastianjer
1:53 AM GMT en Abril 15, 2008
HI Gator, Vort

Sorry got distracted, my wife came in and started talking to me, jeez, lol.

Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
196. Gatorxgrrrl
1:25 AM GMT en Abril 15, 2008
This global warming is making me cold....brrrr:)
Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
195. sebastianjer
1:24 AM GMT en Abril 15, 2008
Hey Vort

As Lat would say "idiots!" lol

Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
193. sebastianjer
11:56 PM GMT en Abril 14, 2008

"The models are telling us something quite different from what nature seems to be telling us. There are various interpretations possible, e.g. a) The big increase in hurricane power over the past 30 years or so may not have much to do with global warming, or b) The models are simply not faithfully reproducing what nature is doing. Hard to know which to believe yet."

Kerry Emanuel

“One should not mix up a scenario with a forecast - I cannot easily compare a scenario for the effects of greenhouse gases alone with observed data, because I cannot easily isolate the effect of the greenhouse gases in these data, given that other forcings are also at play in the real world</strong>.”


Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the U.N. Panel that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, said he would look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this century.

"One would really have to see on the basis of some analysis what this really represents," he told Reuters, adding "are there natural factors compensating?" for increases in greenhouse gases from human activities.

He added that sceptics about a human role in climate change delighted in hints that temperatures might not be rising. "There are some people who would want to find every single excuse to say that this is all hogwash," he said.
Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
192. sebastianjer
9:18 PM GMT en Abril 14, 2008

Find this very interesting. If we could just get off this stupid CO2 kick and get serious about alternatives, it would really help future generations.
Algae: 'The ultimate in renewable energy

"By going vertical, you can get a lot more surface area to expose cells to the sunlight. It keeps the algae hanging in the sunlight just long enough to pick up the solar energy they need to produce, to go through photosynthesis," he said.

Kertz said he can produce about 100,000 gallons of algae oil a year per acre, compared to about 30 gallons per acre from corn; 50 gallons from soybeans.

Using algae as an alternative fuel is not a new idea. The U.S. Department of Energy studied it for about 18 years, from 1978 to 1996. But according to Al Darzins of the DOE's National Renewable Energy Lab, in 1996 the feds decided that algae oil could never compete economically with fossil fuels.

The price of a barrel of oil in 1996? About 20 bucks!

Government scientists experimented with algae in open ponds in California, Hawaii, and in Roswell, New Mexico.

But that involved a lot of land area, with inherent problems of evaporation and contamination from other plant species and various flying and swimming critters. Darzins said NREL switched from algae research to focus on cellulosic ethanol. That's ethanol made from plants like switchgrass and plant stover -- the leaves and stalks left after a harvest -- but not edible crops such as corn and soybeans....

entire article
Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
191. sebastianjer
9:07 PM GMT en Abril 14, 2008
Hi Lat, Vort thanks for stopping by

GSM there is no call for that please don't litter my blog with your feuds.

Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
190. GulfScotsman
3:10 PM GMT en Abril 14, 2008

I had no idea you were such a paranoid new world order conspiracy nut.

I thought it was just the obsession with cutting and pasting that kept you going.

how about a WAFFLE dood.
Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
188. latitude25
12:46 PM GMT en Abril 14, 2008
183. sebastianjer 2:42 AM GMT on April 14, 2008
Don't have the heart to post this on Ricky's blog, but I ought to, lol

I noticed that too.

Every time Ricky starts one of those global warming - spring is coming early - blogs

We have snow, ice, and freezing temps again! LOL
Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
187. sebastianjer
12:16 PM GMT en Abril 14, 2008
Morning Rays and MLC

Have a good day

Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
186. sebastianjer
12:15 PM GMT en Abril 14, 2008
img src="" alt="" />
Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
185. moonlightcowboy
11:51 AM GMT en Abril 14, 2008
183. sebastianjer 9:42 PM CDT on April 13, 2008
Don't have the heart to post this on Ricky's blog, but I ought to, lol

-- JER, lmao! You are a indeed a gentlemen! (BUT, you still oughta post it over there!) ;P

Here's a look at the weakening dollar in a one-month review.

1.00 USD = 10.7624 MXN Peso
1.00 USD = 0.650470 EUR Euro
1.00 USD = 0.990710 CAD Canada
1.00 USD = 7.10600 CNY China Yuan
1.00 USD = 103.157 JPY Japan Yen
1.00 USD = 40.4100 INR India rupees
1.00 USD = 23.8484 RUB Russian Rubies
1.00 USD = 1.02995 CHF Switzerland Francs
1.00 USD = 7.78747 ZAR S. African Rand

As of 3/12/08. We'll visit again in a month.

1.00 USD = 10.5337 MXN Peso (LOSS)
1.00 USD = 0.633070 EUR Euro (LOSS)
1.00 USD = 1.02150 CAD Canada (GAIN)
1.00 USD = 7.00650 CNY China Yuan (LOSS)
1.00 USD = 100.975 JPY Japan Yen (LOSS)
1.00 USD = 39.9400 INR India rupees (LOSS)
1.00 USD = 23.4755 RUB Russian Rubies (LOSS)
1.00 USD = 1.00115 CHF Switzerland Francs (LOSS)
1.00 USD = 7.80890 ZAR S. African Rand (GAIN)

As of 4/12/08. We'll visit again in a month.
Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
184. Raysfan70
11:27 AM GMT en Abril 14, 2008
Good Morning {{Jer}}!
Have a Great Week. :-)
Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
183. sebastianjer
2:42 AM GMT en Abril 14, 2008
Don't have the heart to post this on Ricky's blog, but I ought to, lol
Cold Temperatures Freeze Gardening Season

MARION – All of this cold weather is freezing the start of the gardening season. Now, outdoor fans are eager for a warm-up.

"I'm 71-years-old and I've never seen spring come this late," Robert Ciesleck said.

Ciesleck and his family look forward to gardening together every spring. This year, they're not sure when they're going to be able to get their hands dirty.

"When it starts getting into mid-March and April, then things should change fast, but not this year," he said.

On a typical Sunday afternoon, the Culver’s greenhouse would be packed with people, but the recent cold temperatures scared away a lot of customers.

"All the plants are right here. All you can do is come and look for now. I'd hate to take any home quite yet, but it's getting really tempting,” customer Rhonda Kaczinski said.

Cold temperatures aren't the only problem. This winter's snow and ice storms drenched the soil and left it soggy....

entire article
Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
182. sullivanweather
9:16 PM GMT en Abril 13, 2008
Heidi Cullen just said climate change will be worse than an asteriod impact...lol
Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
181. sebastianjer
5:16 PM GMT en Abril 13, 2008
Hi Lat and Quasi
Thanks for stopping by, good luck with finals Quasi, will keep my fingers crossed for you. Well not really. it would be kind of hard to work that way, lol. Bur good luck anyway.
Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
180. quasigeostropic
5:13 PM GMT en Abril 13, 2008
It's called preconceived bias.....If they're expecting to find AGW and nothing else, then any evidence contradicting that doctrine is automatically refuted as "irrelevant"....

Have a good day JER, week before finals for me.....Oh boy....LOL
Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
179. latitude25
4:58 PM GMT en Abril 13, 2008
174. sebastianjer 10:54 PM GMT on April 12, 2008
LOL Found this to be funny
See something missing? Look at the "official" list of "greenhouse gases" below, as offered by our boy geniuses on the UN IPCC.

but but but
Don't forget the IPCC is not neutral.
The UN's IPCC says very clear that they are not neutral and have no intention of it.
The IPCC mandate says clearly that they will only produce evidence of
"human-induced climate change".

Even if the evidence was overwhelming that global warming was not caused by man.
The IPCC is mandated to only produce literature relevant to "man made global warming".

"The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with
an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does
it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis
the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant
to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change"
Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
178. latitude25
4:49 PM GMT en Abril 13, 2008
"Another Long term temperature graph from a very interesting article "


It all depends on just two things.

1. Where you start the graph showing temps
2. Where you draw that made up average line.

If you start the temp graph at the 1200 mark, the Medieval Optimum, you could just as easily make the case for the coming ice age.
Temps have rapidly fallen since the 1200 mark.

Also, where in this world do they get that "20th Century Average Temps" line from?
They seem to want to have it both ways.

First they try to compare historical global temps,
but them turn around and use 20th century averages.
Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
177. sebastianjer
4:29 PM GMT en Abril 13, 2008
Don't know if I posted this before, but found it interesting. It is something that is becoming a bit more obvious to me lately, The disparity between Northern and Southern Hemisphere in particular.
IPCC Data Show “Global” Warming Still Unproved
9 04 2008

A series of exchanges at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub is a good occasion to re-iterate a simple point: the IPCC has to this day failed to prove that climate change is a worldwide effect.

In other words, there still is no solid evidence of the “global” character of “global warming”.

Let’s look at the IPCC AR4-WG2, Chapter 1.

I presume a “climate non-skeptic” would treat that document as an authoritative source. Better than vague reports on insurance companies or moving plants.

And so: the IPCC AR4-WG2 Chapter 1, dedicated to report ALL changes in a warming planet, lists:

(a) 26,285 significant changes compatible with warming

(b) 3,174 significant changes not compatible with warming (around 11% of the total of 29,459 significant changes)

Plenty to pick-and-choose from, I am sure. But then there are also other quite important numbers from the same report:

(c) 28,234 significant changes are from Europe alone

(d) 1,225 significant changes are from the rest of the world (4.15% of the total)

(e) 25,135 significant changes compatible with warming are from Europe alone

(f) Only 1,150 significant changes compatible with warming are from the rest of the world (4.4% of the total of 26,285 significant changes compatible with warming)

Note that (b) is almost two times bigger than (f). And I haven’t even mentioned the fact that the vast majority of non-European significant changes, come just from North America.

And so, in a sense, it is the IPCC itself that says that the “global” in “global warming” is something that definitely still needs to be demonstrated.
Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
176. sebastianjer
3:41 PM GMT en Abril 13, 2008

I don't know whether to cheer for ice or for oil production, lol

Thu, April 10, 2008
Ice halts offshore oil production

HALIFAX Husky Energy Inc. has once again suspended production of its White Rose project on Newfoundland's Grand Banks due to heavy ice conditions in the area.

A company spokesman says the production vessel SeaRose stopped pumping oil on Monday.

It's the second time in two weeks the company has had to temporarily cease production due to the pack ice.

Graham White, a spokesman for Husky in Calgary, says patches of pack ice are surrounding the vessel and covering about 40% of the ocean in the area.

The rig - which has been operating since 2005 - normally pumps about 140,000 barrels per day of oil.

White said it's too early to tell if the shutdowns will affect the yearly production rates. "We've barely had to be off production for more than 48 hours as a result of ice, so it's too early to speculate," he said.

Thirty-two people were taken off the platform as a safety precaution, leaving 59 people on the vessel.

White Rose, located about 350 km southeast of St. John's, sits on the eastern rim of the North American continental shelf.

The region is prone to heavy ice, but the shutdown last week was the first time White Rose has been forced to halt output because of such conditions since oil production began in November 2005.

Husky is currently boosting development and exploration drilling off Newfoundland's East Coast. It plans to increase drilling on White Rose to increase reservoir recovery and production, bringing White Rose satellite fields into production in late 2009 or early 2010.
Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
175. sebastianjer
12:10 AM GMT en Abril 13, 2008
Another Long term temperature graph from a very interesting article in Ice Cap about Historical Accounts of Cold During the Decline of the Roman Empire. From Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, which was written in 1776

Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
174. sebastianjer
10:54 PM GMT en Abril 12, 2008
LOL Found this to be funny
See something missing? Look at the "official" list of "greenhouse gases" below, as offered by our boy geniuses on the UN IPCC. Golly, it appears that Water Vapor isn't among the list - the UN IPCC says its role is "not well understood", even though it is responsible for about 95% of the "greenhouse effect. Using their logic, we could argue that our human population is all-male - because females are "not well understood" - and thus it is proper to remove any mention of them in our list of genders on the planet. Also note that only "anthropogenic" sources are listed - no mention of the minor fact that the earth itself is the major contributor of CO2. Hey, natural stuff doesn't count ( when you're trying to create panic.)

from a great site
Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
173. sebastianjer
9:27 PM GMT en Abril 12, 2008
Hi Gamma, nice to see you out and about, lol. Have a great weekend
Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
172. seflagamma
9:25 PM GMT en Abril 12, 2008
Hi Jer,

just a few minutes and wanted to see what's new here! always some interesting reading going on inthis blog! LOL

hope you are enjoying your weekend!
Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
171. sebastianjer
8:00 PM GMT en Abril 12, 2008
Hi Gator, you too!
Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
170. sebastianjer
7:59 PM GMT en Abril 12, 2008
Kerry Emanual Reconsiders Global Warming Impact on Hurricanes

One of the most influential scientists behind the theory that global warming has intensified recent hurricane activity says he will reconsider his stand.

The hurricane expert, Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, unveiled a novel technique for predicting future hurricane activity this week. The new work suggests that, even in a dramatically warming world, hurricane frequency and intensity may not substantially rise during the next two centuries.

Read more in the Houston Chronicle: Hurricane expert reconsiders global warming's impact

The peer reviewed BMAS article is available on Kerry Emanual's homepage here.

This is another blow to climate alarmists and Gore's AIT, where the 'science' is presented as being 'settled.'

Let's see if the mainstream media report on this and if the BBC can post a website article unmolested by 'climate campiagner' Jo Abbess.

I guess Al Gore will add a footnote to his movie, books etc. that this part of settled science is not quite settled, do you think? Nah, lol
Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
169. Gatorxgrrrl
10:53 PM GMT en Abril 11, 2008
Have a good weekend Jerry!
Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
168. sebastianjer
10:28 PM GMT en Abril 11, 2008
I'll give it a try Lat, lol

Member Since: Diciembre 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 218 - 168

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5Blog Index

Top of Page
Ad Blocker Enabled


About sebastianjer

Local Weather

77 ° F

sebastianjer's Recent Photos

Looking for Lunch
Landing Gear
Sunday Morning