Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

A response to the response

(2639)
  • Mike Doran
    Mar 27, 2007 Expand Messages
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      It had to happen--a propaganda hit piece in response to Al
      Gore' 'Inconvinient Truth'. Here is the internet link to it:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fyourturn%
      2Enpr%2Eorg%2Fcgi%2Dbin%2FWebX%3F8%40245%2El4b0afFeltm%2E40%40%
      2Eee7018e

      Fred Singer, a so-called skeptic, responds. I think what bothers me
      most about Singer is he is what I would call a FAKE SKEPTIC:

      www.examiner.com/a-632719~British_television_s_convenient_truth.html



      quote:

      ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      ----------

      There is no proof at all that the current warming is caused by the
      rise of greenhouse gases from human activities. Observations in ice
      cores show that temperature increases have preceded — not resulted
      from — increases in CO2, by hundreds of years, suggesting that the
      warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in
      atmospheric CO2.


      ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      ----------



      Actually this is consistant with decarbonation electrics and melting
      ice and it's impact on climate. Initially warming is going to cause
      the kinetics to be changed, particularly with tropical storms. That
      can changes in hydrology as well as changes to the ice and snow
      balances globally. Then there is the biological connection to the
      carbon load. Ultimately, this is a complex relationship where the
      assumption is that the causal chain goes from warming to ocean
      warming to a different equillibrium constant of chemistry in the
      ocean that causes CO2 to come out of solution. However warmer inputs,
      say from solar inputs, lead to warmer oceans which leads to increases
      in CONDUCTIVITY, not just potentially a change in the equillibrium
      constant.

      As readers here know, I am not a warmer. I think that huge risk here
      from human increases of CO2 is NOT warming per se but INSTABILITY
      with the ultimate risk a premature neo glacial that would kill
      billions. And that the ultimate sign and symptom of this occurring is
      a rapidly melting Arctic:

      This is a great site on the web which shows the nature and extent of
      the ice loss in the Arctic based on images from space:

      http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

      This is a recent story on the subject:

      http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html

      This is a link to how the Earth EMF shrinking. I post it here because
      there is a huge difference electrically to a region ELECTRICALLY
      between conductive salt water and insulative ice, particularly with
      the Arctic the location of the earth's north (electrically south) EMF
      pole:

      http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=000A3C38-C656-
      1C71-9EB7809EC588F2D7&catID=3


      The melted Arctic is the precursor to a super storm--the mother of
      all climate instability events. Once ice starts to pile back on the
      land, the oceans become more saline--and therefore more CONDUCTIVE--
      this is your electrics forcing toward a runnaway event. The other
      requirement would be the earth EMF poles moving toward the tropics.
      What then happens, is like Saturn had a big storm at its south pole
      where its magnetic poles are located at the tropics, is that the
      capacitive couplings near the poles are not disrupted by the magnetic
      poles of the earth because the isobars are at 90 degress from that
      storm. So a region which is used to say 10 cm of snow a year all of
      sudden starts getting tropical levels of rain over broad regions and
      quickly the snow accummulates on the land and the oceans become very
      saline where this is happening and you get the conditions for a
      runnaway event. The problem, the grave problem, is electrical
      instability.

      So here we are again talking about a lag time. What is the lag time
      too, here? Initially we're seeing warming with the increase in CO2,
      but as the dynamics change with the melting Arctic, what will it
      trigger. Will it trigger a warming phase where there eventually is
      warming oceans which produce a feedback of CO2 in the atmosphere or
      will it cause a super storm which DROPS temperature? Because the
      causal chain question is much different from an electrics advantage,
      the conclusion drawn is much different about the lag issue.


      quote:


      ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      ----------

      As the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor is far more important
      than CO2, yet not well handled by climate models — and, in any case,
      not within our control. Greenhouse models cannot account for the
      observed cooling of much of the last century (1940–75), nor for the
      observed patterns of warming — what we call the "fingerprints." For
      example, the Antarctic is cooling while models predict warming. And
      where the models call for the middle atmosphere to warm faster than
      the surface, the observations show the exact opposite.

      ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      ----------


      Again the warming in the 1970s as well as the Little Ice Age cycle
      can be better explained by the moon and electrics. Once you conclude
      that the moon has an electrical induction meaning with its orbit and
      go down the electrics road complexity, then the relationship to CO2
      becomes DEPENDANT and you can't talk about these cycles as unrelated
      to the feedbacks that life provides.

      I also must mention the melting Arctic in contrast with some of the
      regional cooling of Antarctica. The anomalies presented by the
      shrinking earth EMF above are tightening around the two asteroid
      impact sites at the Yucatan and Wilkes. Both have significant
      electrics meaning. Indeed following the Wilkes impact site I submit
      there was 60 million years of climate stability and not an extinction
      event because the alignment of electrics correspond to storms in the
      tropics rather than neo global super storms at the poles, alia Saturn
      south pole storm as captured by the NASA craft last year in November
      where Saturn's EMF poles are in its tropics.


      quote:

      ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      ----------

      But the best evidence we have supports natural causes — changes in
      cloudiness linked to regular variations in solar activity. Thus, the
      current warming is likely part of a natural cycle of climate warming
      and cooling that's been traced back almost a million years. It
      accounts for the Medieval Warm Period around 1100 A.D., when the
      Vikings were able to settle Greenland and grow crops, and the Little
      Ice Age, from about 1400 to 1850 A.D., which brought severe winters
      and cold summers to Europe, with failed harvests, starvation, disease
      and general misery.

      ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      ----------

      This is horribly and terribly false. The Maunder Min, which AGAIN is
      an electrical phenomenon, basically a very small current of solar
      wind that hardly dents the earth's EMF and atmosphere, must rely on
      electrics feedbacks and how the earth TAKES these inputs. More on
      point to the Little Ice Age is the moon, which I have been debating
      here as to its electrics significance or not. Where I start, and I
      invite any fair reader to start, is with the Keeling Whorf paper:

      http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/070047197


      quote:

      ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      ----------

      2. If the cause of warming is mostly natural, then there is little we
      can do about it. We cannot influence the inconstant sun, the likely
      origin of most climate variability. None of the schemes of mitigation
      bandied about will do any good; they are all irrelevant, useless and
      wildly expensive:

      » Control of CO2 emissions, whether by rationing or by elaborate cap–
      and–trade schemes

      » Uneconomic "alternative" energy, such as ethanol and the
      impractical "hydrogen economy"

      » Massive installations of wind turbines and solar collectors

      » Proposed projects for the sequestration of CO2 from smokestacks or
      even from the atmosphere

      Ironically, all these schemes would be ineffective even if CO2 were
      responsible for the observed warming trend — unless we can somehow
      persuade every nation, including China, to cut fuel use by 80 percent!

      ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      ----------

      Because he misses mechanism, he fails to see how the entire package
      of what human activity means carries electrics meaning.
      Deforestation, dam building, CO2 all play a part. Nations like China
      will see that local activity will have local climate implications,
      for instance. And he also fails to see how there may be human
      solutions which are not as expensive, including, for instance,
      creating a conductive line in Antarctica to increase the stability of
      the earth EMF toward the poles. But because he fails to see the
      mechanism, he only operates as a fraud.


      quote:

      ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      ----------


      3. Finally, there is no evidence that a warmer climate would produce
      negative impacts overall. The much–feared rise in sea level does not
      seem to depend on short–term temperature changes. (Since the peak of
      the last ice age, 18,000 years ago, sea level has risen 400 feet; its
      rate of rise has been steady for the last century or more.) In fact,
      many economists argue that the opposite is more likely — that warming
      produces a net benefit, that it increases incomes and standards of
      living. All agree that a colder climate would be bad. So why would
      the present climate just happen to be the optimum?

      But the main message of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is much
      broader. Why should we devote scarce resources to a nonproblem, and
      ignore real world problems: hunger, disease, denial of human rights —
      not to mention the threats of terrorism and nuclear wars? Yet
      politicians throughout much of the world prefer to toy with
      fashionable issues rather than concentrate on real ones. Just
      consider the scary predictions emanating from supposedly responsible
      world figures: Britain's chief scientist tells us that unless we
      insulate our houses and use more efficient light bulbs, the Antarctic
      will be the only habitable continent by 2100. Seriously!

      I imagine that in the not–too–distant future, all of the hype will
      have died down, particularly if the climate should decide to cool —
      as it did during much of the last century; we should take note here
      that it has not warmed since 1998. Future generations will look back
      on the current madness and wonder what it was all about. They will
      have movies like "An Inconvenient Truth" and documentaries like "The
      Great Global Warming Swindle" to remind them.


      ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      ----------



      Much of the film "The Inconvinient Truth" goes to the facts--what
      changes are occurring, and in that sense is good. To the extent that
      the percieved warming is based on an incorrect causal mechanism, both
      sides are to blame, but mostly I put it on the fraudulant behavior of
      the so called skeptics. Their legacy--they were whores -- who have
      been exposed as liars or at least distortionists. One of the
      interesting things I am looking at right now is how Kilomenjaro is
      losing its glacier. If you look at the electrics anomalies, in a way
      this isn't surprising. The Yucatan impact site and the Wilkes site as
      a tightening target of changing magnetic field isobars seems to have
      impacted the capacitive couplings of the ITCZ as it moves across
      Africa from the Indian Ocean to the Atlantic. Moved them, changed
      them. These shifts are indeed warnings, indeed an inconvinient truth
      of the human footprint. Will we pay attention to where we are going,
      or not?