 Yes folks, from the same people who made you pay for the millenium bug and brought you Reds-Under-The-Bed and WMDs in Iraq, who told us we would run out of food and oil by 2000, banned DDT for nothing (& here & here & here), stopped you from eating "frankenfood" just in case it harms you, stuffed up all air conditioning for an ozone hole that just won't go away &[2][3][4], filled up your engine bay with expensive anti-pollution gear, told you Chernobel killed hundreds of thousands, (&here) and that we were entering a new ice age, stopped them building dykes around New Orleans, made wild fires worse by baning burning off, claims high voltage power lines cause cancer, and Fluoride would poison people not to mention alien crop circles, Big Foot and the loch Ness Monster, we now present the grandaddy of them all - Ta Da! - GLOBAL WARMING - and if you think the millenium bug was a waste of money you ain't seen nuthin' yet folks, get ready to really pay. Your power bills and your fuel bills are going sky high. The days of the cheap, readily availiable, power and fuel that brought luxury, prosperity and comfort to the masses are over. Global Warming is not science. It is a strange mixture of politics, spirituality and superstition, and media hype. Global Warming comes from a UN political group called the IPCC, an off-shoot of the EU green parties, who have successfully used science to predict various ecological non-disasters. Global Warming is the mother of all such doomsday fear. They have very successfully reversed the principle that the consensus follows the science - now science follows the consensus. Unfortunately, fixing Global Warming is not simple - Vladimir Lenin, Carl Marx and Che Guevara would have just loved it - it is radical change.  Putting up
solar panels, wind farms, and fluro light bulbs are pathetically
inadequate.Fossil fuels are so intrinsic to our whole way of life that the cure would be far worse than the disease. We should be careful - count the cost first. We could finish up in a Soviet-style regime, where we all catch buses and ride bikes, while the ruling Green elite enjoy the spoils of office in the name of Gaia. What Vladimir Lenin, Carl Marx and Che Guevara would NOT love is the betrayal of socialism that Global Warming means. Billions of third world people live in abject, subsistance, poverty. They are all denied advancement by AGW (Anthropogengic - human - Global Warming) activists and it's not just them - the attempt to control Global Warming must result in higher energy prices. The abandonment of cheap, readily availiable energy in the developed world will result in the impoverishment of not only the poor but the whole middle class. The egalitarianism that has brought abundance and prosperity to the masses in the West is now threatened. The rich like Al Gore and Leon Decaprio and Kate Blanchet will sail through aboard their business jets while their fans pay a very high price for their activism. The left should be alarmed by the alacrity that big capital has shown in embracing Climate Change - they are playing with fire letting those snouts into the trough. At best, we'll just get endlessly nagged about a problem with no actual solution, but which goes on and on costing us a hell of a lot of money anyway. The next time some Greenie or some Pollie starts nagging you about Global Warming, demand to see his plan to actually fix it properly once and for all or tell them to p*ss off and don't come back without one. The whole theory is based on the very dubious contention, that this web page will now effectively debunk, that although it has no effect by itself, Carbon dioxide is going to warm the air enough to trigger more humidity and thus warm the planet up that way. The fact that this permanent rise in humidity never occurs naturally is convieniently ignored but is never-the-less true. The Globe often does warm up slightly all by itself and it never causes humidity to stay up (below). Why a small warming by a small CO2 increase should be special is never explained. If we had the kind of instability assumed in the Global Warming theory we would see it in the historical record - we don't. If we get lucky, the "natural forcings" that really determine the Earth's temperature will cause a cooling in climate and we can spend our 20 million million dollars on something useful like elevating the third world. The IPCC themselves state that the world may only heat by one degree - nothing. We should wait, see what happens to climate, and just deal with it as best we can, as we always have.
|
|
Now here - http://greenhousebullcrap.bigblog.com.au/index.do |
|
ONE "But how do you know that that wasn't going to happen anyway"? TWO "But how can you be sure that those computer models are correct"? THREE "And how are you so sure it will be so bad - how do you know that? . FOUR
"Why did the Globe stop warming 19 years ago ?
|
| Speaking
of fundamentally flawed, how's this? Greenie answer - "no Virginia it stays in the air for up to 80 years that's why we must stop making it?" "Well why do we pay that man to plant lots of trees so we can have a nice big car and a nice big house and fly everywhere?" "Don't ask stupid questions Virginia - that's devil talk - people will think you are a Denier and you will FAIL. Trees are nice. Trees are Green." "Oh." (When the trees die they all decay back to CO2 eventually anyway -but we won't mention that or forest fires either) |
|
CARBON DIOXIDE IS A VERY TINY
COMPONENT OF AIR
CARBON DIOXIDE is only 370 parts
per million volume in
air - one part per million is one can of coke in a 30 meter swimming
pool [370 is just over two 44-gallon drums - if it was salt you
couldn't taste it, if it was dye it wouldn't colour it].
The reason CO2 is such a tiny proportion of the atmosphere is because all the plants on the Earth love it - they just gobble it up immediately - they can't get enough of it http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N10/EDIT.jsp . The Earth's greenhouse effect is totally caused by water vapour, but an insignificant 2% of it is due to Carbon Dioxide - MIT prof. RS Lindzen. Water Vapour is up to 40,000 parts per million volume of air - variable - typically 10,000 - and it's molecule has a greenhouse effect three times that of Carbon Dioxide. Carbon Dioxide at a concentration of 370 parts per million volume is, in effect, not actually a Greenhouse gas at all. No reputable scientist would call Carbon Dioxide a Greenhouse gas. To call Methane at 1.8ppm a greenhouse gas is just a perversion of science. 
Anyway, the Earth's temperature is mostly determined by air currents between the warm surface and cold space. The greenhouse effect is overwhelmed by convectional cooling. The sun shines through and heats up the Earth's surface, so there is a relatively hot surface at the bottom of the atmosphere and extremely cold empty space at the top. Hot air rises and takes the heat with it and cold air flows back down to fill the gap. Almost all the Sun's heat that is transferred back to space is by this convection - updrafts - not by re-radiation from the surface. The blanketing effect of the atmosphere is overwhelmingly due to the speed of this circulation - greenhouse is purely a minor radiative effect. This convection effect is a negative feedback and a "natural forcing" of the Earth's temperature. That is, if more greenhouse warming did occur, it would cause more active convection currents in the atmosphere and thus counteract the warming effect. Ironically this is actually how real greenhouses work, by stopping this convection, "greenhouse" is a misnomer for the radiative effect (glass and plastic transmit infrared as efficiently as the higher wavelengths); by stopping the air mixing freely the Greenhouse retains it's heat. Also, of course, some heat comes from the planet's molten core. |
|
Carbon
dioxide's wavelength is very quickly becoming saturated.
The
carbon dioxide molecule can only adsorb a certain very narrow band of
frequency (about 15 microns wavelenth) of the total infared heat (5-70
microns wavelenth) going
back out from the Earth.
CO2 thus has less and less effect on the global temperature as more and more of that 15 micron frequency is absorbed. You very rapidly reach the point where CO2 has absorbed all it can. The effect of carbon dioxide on temperature is thus (inversely) logarithmic and climate sensitivity decreases rapidly with increasing concentration. i.e. The first 20 ppm of carbon dioxide has a greater temperature effect than the next 400 ppm. etc.etc. We have reached the point where adding more and more CO2 to air just has less and less effect. This is scientific fact - reference here - http://www.junkscience.com/jan08/Global_Warming_Not_From_CO2_20080124.pdf |
|
HOW CARBON AND CARBON DIOXIDE
FUNCTION IN THE BIOSPHERE
WITHOUT CARBON DIOXIDE EVERY GREEN PLANT ON LAND AND SEA WOULD DIE. MANY BILLIONS OF TONS OF IT CIRCULATE BETWEEN ANIMALS AND PLANTS TO SUSTAIN ALL THE LIFE ON OUR BLUE PLANET. The Carbon Cycle is awesome. Every
plant on earth and in the ocean breathes in Carbon Dioxide and breathes
out Oxygen and every animal on the planet breathes in Oxygen and
breathes out Carbon Dioxide on a gigantic scale that dwarfs the human
burning of fuels.
The
level of Carbon Dioxide in air changes naturally.The Earth teems and seethes with life, most of it is invisible, such as bacteria, algae and plankton. Our macro-fauna bodies constantly battle these microbes until the moment of death, when they quickly consume us. A Carbon Dioxide molecule from an animal is heavy and soluble and usually doesn't get far before it is grabbed by a plant. The Carbon Dioxide that we measure in air is this flux of molecules in transit from animals to plants. There was once much more Carbon dioxide in the air without historical evidence of a runaway greenhouse effect. It has been slowly locked up in minerals over Eons. Modern plants are hungry with a voracious appetite for it. See the Vostoc Ice core data graph below, and here, http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec97/877439799.Es.r.html . It varies measurably in the northern hemisphere when trees drop their leaves in winter - it doesn't take decades or centuries, billions of tons of CO2 are sucked from the atmosphere every spring. Also, its
solubility in the oceans varies with the earth's temperature.
Previously an increase in CO2 in air was always the result of the Earth
warming - not the cause of it. (When you warm up a glass of Coke it
gives off it's CO2 bubbles)
We are, however, a very long way
from
being able to scientifically predict the effects of perturbations to
this active, dynamic, biological system. Attempts to do so quickly bog
down.
An essential of the Global Warming Theory is that nature cannot absorb the human produced Carbon for many decades or even a century or two. Like the assumptions that human CO2 will hugely trigger more water vapour in the air, and that Greenhouse will exacerbate the weather and cause disease, this is just made up as they go along and not proven. It is not science. What is science is that... [ from http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm ] Humans produce just 6 billion tons of Carbon (26 billion tons CO2) each year. The atmosphere contains 750 billion tons of Carbon. The surface ocean contains 1,000 billion tons of Carbon. Vegetation, soils, and detritus contain 2,200 billion tons of Carbon. The intermediate and deep oceans contain 38,000 billion tons of Carbon. Each year;
The
interaction of these gargantuan carbon sinks is biological in nature
and extremely complex. It does defy scientific prediction; but...It is
a
very big [ if not incredible and disreputable ] assumption that adding
a tiny 4 billion tons a year from fossil fuels back into these huge
cycles and gigantic sinks will make any significant difference to the
atmosphere or, conversely, that any difference in the atmosphere is
entirely attributable to that tiny 4 billion tons.
UNTIL WE CAN QUANTIFY AND PREDICT THE CARBON CYCLE, GLOBAL WARMING THEORY IS INVALID. |
|
Update. There
was a large spike in Global Temp in 1998 but since then nothing. Now,
just recently, global temperature has suddenly dropped leading to real
fears that if the solar wind stays quiet we will have another "little
ice age" or extended cold climate period lasting decades.
Yes Virgina the globe was warming, it goes in cycles, we had the Roman Warm period, the Medieval Warm period when Vikings settled Greenland, then until quite recently we had the "little ice age" when it was quite cold - at present we are still coming out of the little ice age, but this appears to have stopped about 10 years ago, so the climate may have stopped warming now (graph below). It would be a bad thing for cool temperate climates such as Europe and USA if we plunged into another cool period, but it would kill off the superstition that we are global warming the planet and save us trillons. On a
macro scale, Antarctic
Ice Core Data show that we appear to be somewhere near the
top of the most recent cycle in the global temperature - we may get a
little warmer before we plunge into the next ice age.
found
on http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/ninelieslaunch.pdf#search=%22vostok%20figure%20125%22
A
more recent global temperature graph shows a tiny increase in global
temperature that shows
no relationship with human Carbon Dioxide output [ the curves below
show no correlation ] and which is well within
natural variability.
 [
A temperature anomaly dT is how much the average temperature for a
month or a year varies from the norm.]
 
The Total Human Carbon
(Dioxide) Output
The Proportion Of Carbon
Dioxide In Air in parts per million by volume
These
two graphs seen together show how, despite such a huge, rapidly
increasing, global output of carbon dioxide, there is only a small,
slow,
linear, increase in the proportion of the gas in our air. The
350,000 million tonnes of Carbon we have added to the atmosphere (left)
is
almost half the amount that was there when we started.The planet seems hungry for the gas. It is being rapidly absorbed and there seems to be no relationship between the two graphs. (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N10/EDIT.jsp) The
claim that recent temperature rises have occurred due to Carbon Dioxide
rising is also effectively debunked by comparing the above Vostok Ice
Core temperature graph [orange]
with the following Vostok Ice Core CO2
graph whereby the level of CO2 follows the temperature pattern closely
but always just slightly behind proving that temperature is causing CO2
to rise or fall - not that CO2 is causing temperature to rise or fall!
In other words the measured increase we see in Carbon Dioxide is
perfectly natural - the result of a natural cycle [probably solar] not
the cause of the Earth warming as claimed by the Greenies.
 found
on http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/ninelieslaunch.pdf#search=%22vostok%20figure%20125%22
Here is tne NASA data - http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/ - bit complex, but there has been a slow rise - expected from coming out of the "little ice age" - and this seems to have tapered off since the big El Nino event year 1998. It's
supposed to be GLOBAL warming but the southern half of the
globe
is being a "denier" and just refusing to warm at all.
 scource http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/Conf2007/Archibald2007.pdf see also http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/MSUvsHadley.html and http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/MSUvsRSS.html Please note that there is a strong "spike" around 1998. The spike in 1998 is proof against carbon dioxide causing more water vapour and thus more humidity and thus catastrophic warming. After the big rise in 1998 the Globe quickly corrected itself and plunged back down again. Humidity did not go up and stay up as supposed in the computer models. The Earth is obviously regulating itself. Dismissing that spike as just a strong El Nino cannot explain it away. Fact is the Earth is always regulating itself and it will do so in response to any human disruption also. Global Warming models all rely on CO2 increasing the global humidity - an invalid assumption. If the Alarmists could explain what happened there in 1998 we could start taking them seriously, but like the rest of us, how planet Earth behaves is still a mystery to them too - at present predicting mother Earth is still presumptuous superstition. |
|
A MODEL IS A MODEL
OF REALITY - IT'S NOT REALITY ITSELF.
Why
are otherwise
sensible, rational, intelligent people prepared to
blindly accept that the earth is going to get hotter because a
computer program predicts it ???
A COMPUTER PROGRAM ! well it must be true then! Pig's Bum. It
is extremely ambitious to try to model the earth's climate itself, let
alone try to include the biology and oceanography, of the whole planet
in it as well!
Even supercomputers are inadequate to allow long-term integrations of the relevant equations at adequate spatial resolutions. At presently available resolutions, it is unlikely that the computer solutions are close to the solutions of the underlying equations. YOU COULD MULTIPLY MANY TIMES THE CO2 LEVEL IN AIR WITHOUT IT DIRECTLY WARMING THE GLOBE AT ALL. All, not some, but all the computer models and the scenarios based on them are based on assumptions, not verified by experimental facts or physics but pure conjecture and unproven assertions that... 1.
A small increase in carbon dioxide is some how going to trigger off a
very large increase in the only significant greenhouse gas, water
vapour.
2. The normal negative feedback effects of increasing water vapour - more snow and clouds reflecting heat back to space and more active atmospheric updrafts dissipating the extra heat - are somehow not going to work any more to cool things down as per usual. [Snow and clouds are just left out because it is impossible to computer model them] This is
known
colloquially as blinding you with science.
Do all the computer programs factor in the Carbon Cycle ? NO. Does the Carbon Cycle affect the level of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere ? YES. [ It is the determinant ] Do all the computer programs assume that the Earth's climate will otherwise remain stable YES. Is the Earth's climate otherwise stable ? NO. --------------------------------------------------------------------
Now we find
the models are proven
wrong - they all predicted much increased
equatorial temperatures and they were all wrong - HEREBut let us hear from the self appointed authority who bought us the whole Global Warming theory theory based on computer models... "In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate state is not possible." -- Final chapter, Draft TAR 2000 (Third Assessment Report), IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Q.E.D. A very good technical expose
and discussion on computer models... http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/05/23/a-short-summary-of-why-skillful-climate-prediction-is-much-more-difficult-than-skillful-weather-prediction/ |
The
Arctic Ice Cap is only a few meters thick, it only contains .01% of the
worlds ice (the East Antarctic ice sheet accounts for 80% of the
world's ice). It is the frozen interface between a very deep,
relatively warm Arctic ocean and the very cold air mass above.
It varies considerably in thickness and extent, having a huge
annual variation and apparent long term cycles. It is pushed
around by
the wind and the arctic ocean currents which tend to pile the ice up in
some regions and create open water in others. The contention that
satellite images of the AREA of the
ice represent the VOLUME
of the ice are patently absurd. The only measurement of the thickness
of the ice has been by a very few and arbitrary submarine voyages. 
