Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Polar Bears still happy!

photo © Amanda Byrd.
Polar bears still aren't drowning or dying off like claimed back in 2005 and earlier.
The Amanda Byrd pic which was used for that hoax from the leftist media to get more people sucking up false news about Global Warming is still being used as so many were fooled and still don't know the truth.
I had one gal post that pic alone on another blog just to show her support for the Global Warming side. She had to be so embarrassed when I pointed out the news that she was fooled by the hoax. I felt bad for her, but she wouldn't admit she was fooled by her comrades in the "pseudo media" who deceived her so distastefully. And the fact that this scam has been known for years and the pic was still swirling around with the original hoax story its just hard to clean up such horrid lies.

Saturday, October 27, 2007

20/20 John Stossel on Climate Change

This is 20/20 John Stossel on Climate Change

Huricanes come and go and not with climate change

Again one easy thing to debunk with the silly claims by Al Gore's movie... we are not having all them dang hurricanes like he promised. In fact "
Florida State University’s COAPS (Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies) says that hurricane season 2007, which ends November 30th, is looking well below normal, in fact they are calling it “historic inactivity”.
Looks like Al Gore is dead wrong again.

The Story of Oil and where it comes from

The pseudo name for oil fuels should be changed to be appropriate to the actual source of oil. Diatom Fuel would be just fine or Sea-bottom Diatom Fuel.

Read this online booklet that takes you step by step through the process of oil creation

BioFuels Look worse by the day

Below is a writing that explains more problems with biofuels and the un-tested theory that they could put out less C02 than Sea-bottom diatom fuels(formerly known as Fossil fuels)

In two prior Editorials, those of 26 September 2007 and 10 October 2007, we describe two important scientific findings that refute the "creation care" contention of England's Sir John Houghton that "very large growth" in the biofuels industry will be required in taking the moral high-road to help slow CO2-induced global warming. Those findings are that: (1) in order to produce enough biofuels to offset a significant amount of fossil fuel usage, humanity would have to employ a large portion of earth's remaining arable land and freshwater resources, which would result in the driving of innumerable species of plants and animals to extinction due to massive habitat loss, and (2) forestation of the land area needed for biofuel production would likely remove much more carbon from the atmosphere than what would not be put into the air by using biofuels in the place of fossil fuels. Here, we describe yet a third way in which replacing fossil fuels with biofuels may be detrimental to earth's climate and the biosphere.

In an important new paper published on 1 August 2007 in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions, Crutzen et al. (2007) calculate the amount of nitrous oxide (N2O) that would be released to the atmosphere as a result of using nitrogen fertilizer to produce the crops used for biofuels, which analysis, in their words, "only considers the conversion of biomass to biofuel" and "does not take into account the use of fossil fuel on ... farms and for fertilizer and pesticide production." As they describe it, this work revealed that "all past studies have severely underestimated the release rates of N2O to the atmosphere, with great potential impact on climate warming." And why would greater N2O emission rates have a tendency to cause the climate to warm? Because, in their vernacular, N2O "is a 'greenhouse gas' with a 100-year average global warming potential 296 times larger than an equal mass of CO2."

Full story at C02
Canada News

Look to the sun
An experiment by Danish scientists offers convincing evidence linking global warming to an increase in cosmic radiation

Ian Douglas Clark
Financial Post
Thursday, October 12, 2006

Since Newton's inadvertent experiment with gravity beneath the apple tree, scientists have constrained their theories of how nature operates with the need for experimental evidence -- replicable measurements and quantifiable data -- as proof. While the evidence may sometimes prove the obvious, it may also completely change the accepted view of fundamental processes. Ptolemy's theory of the Earth-centred solar system involved impossibly intricate gyrations of the sun, moon and planets. Copernicus' celestial measurements and Galileo's telescope provided experimental observations of moons orbiting Jupiter and reversals in planetary motion to prove we have a sun-centred solar system.

The science of global climate change is no different, where a heated debate exists between two theories -- climate warming forced by CO2 from human activities (anthropogenic global warming or AGW) and natural warming by changes in the Sun's activity.

Last week, the Danish National Space Center released the results of an experiment that demonstrates how cosmic rays could influence natural warming. In so doing, it ruptured a bedrock of some in the AWG camp. As put by Eigil Friis-Christensen, director of the Danish National Space Center, "Some said there was no conceivable way in which cosmic rays could influence cloud cover. [Our] experiment now shows how they do so, and should help to put the cosmic-ray connection firmly onto the agenda of international climate research."

For decades now, the 20th-century increase in global temperature has been largely blamed on the rise in CO2 from human activities. And why not, given that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that can trap infrared radiation and warm the atmosphere? The problem is that the rise in CO2 is not enough to account for this temperature rise. To compensate, the AGW theory assumes an amplification by water vapour of two to three times.

Water vapour is the major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and accounts for as much as 95% of the natural greenhouse warming that keeps the Earth habitable. According to this theory, a minor amount of warming by CO2 triggers a larger increase in water vapour. Computer models incorporate this amplified forcing and extrapolate over the next 100 years to predict temperature increase of 1.5 degrees to 4.5 degreesC. Further extrapolation of climate feedbacks has produced the wild speculations of an overheated planet that have led to the catastrophic predictions of The Day After Tomorrow and An Inconvenient Truth.

Supporting the other side of the debate, there are remarkably strong correlations between measures of past solar activity and global temperature. For example, the coldest periods of the Little Ice Age, some 300 years ago, occurred when no sunspots were observed on the face of the sun. Moreover, the rise in temperature over the past 100 years occurred when the sun increased its output to its highest levels in the past 1,000 years.

The problem in this theory is that radiant heat from the more active sun is not enough to explain the rise in 20th-century temperatures. However, a change in solar activity affects more than the light the sun emits. It also changes the sun's magnetosphere that sweeps out past the Earth and partly shields us from the harmful high-energy cosmic radiation originating from supernovae deep in the Milky Way. The theory is that these cosmic rays affect our climate by ionizing particles and gases in our atmosphere. These ionized molecules act as nucleation points for water droplets and lead to the formation of clouds. Clouds reflect sunlight back into space and have by far the greatest impact on the Earth's energy balance and climate. Changes in solar activity, then, have a second and more potent impact on our climate through changes in the cosmic ray flux and thus on cloudiness.

This brings us to the burden of scientific evidence in the climate debate. Until now, the evidence for both sides has relied essentially upon wiggle-matching -- how well the ups and downs in temperature over time match with the ups and downs of solar activity, or of CO2 in the atmosphere. Until now, both theories lacked experimental evidence.

The Danish discovery has changed this. Researchers led by the Space Centre's Henrik Svensmark published experimental evidence in the proceedings of the prestigious British Royal Society showing that high-energy cosmic rays do have the ability to ionize molecules in our atmosphere and nucleate clouds. Mr. Svensmark's team managed to reproduce the gases and chemistry of the lower atmosphere inside a chamber of seven cubic metres. Into this simulated atmosphere, they fired a beam of charged particles like the high-energy cosmic radiation that manages to penetrate the Earth's magnetic shielding. Their measurements of the charged particles they created and the rates of nucleation match with those required to have a measurable impact on climate. They provide experimental evidence to support the theory.

The Danes are not the only team to have sought experimental evidence for cosmic ray forcing of the climate. University of Ottawa researcher Jan Veizer and colleague Nir Shaviv use geology and meteorites to show a cosmic ray connection with climate over the past 600-million years. The research team at CERN, the EU's foremost centre for high-energy physics, announced last month that their new CLOUD experiments would test the theory of cloud formation by cosmic rays. NASA is also taking the solar connection more seriously. This past spring, two new satellites were launched to collect data on the link between cloud formation and climate. All this activity signals a recognition that the solar-cosmic ray-cloudiness connection must be taken seriously in climate research.

While these Danish experiments provide new evidence to support the theory of solar-forcing of climate change, the CO2 warming theory remains untested and unverified. Beyond wiggle-matching, no experimental evidence has been produced to show that an increase in CO2 can accelerate the water cycle and increase greenhouse warming with water vapour. In fact, ice core evidence from the past shows that it doesn't.

In the natural sciences, if you can't measure it, you can't prove it.

© National Post 2006

Friday, October 26, 2007

War? has to be called what it is..."terrorism"....Environmentalist must be giddy about their huge bon-fires they created with their do-nothing idealism that left millions of acres of southern California ready for big burning. I can only hear them say quietly to themselves that the people who had houses in these areas had no right to be there and the fires were justice. That is the mindset of hate filled eviro-mentals and why many now say that liberalism is a disease.
We cannot look away from this and we have to begin the real effort of thinning forests to make them pristine and to clear firebreaks to stop uncontrolled burning of desert dry areas like we have seen year after year since 1970 when Enviro-mentals took away all common sense care of the forests and dry brush areas. Now people have died because some dorky bird or rodent was protected by stupidity and hate of man-kind.
These fires this year show the real importance of following through with a bill that was passed years ago to thin forests and make them healthier so these fires cannot burn uncontrollably.

Western Furniture Site

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

The Old Farmers Almanac uses old sunspot theory to predict weather

The Old Farmers Almanac uses old sunspot theory to predict weather to a 80% accuracy since 1787.

This year's edition, on newsstands Wednesday, predicts a warmer than average winter in much of the country. Believers will look for below-average snowfall, except for a narrow swath extending from northeast Texas to Northern New England.

Using a secret formula based on sunspots, weather patterns and meteorology, the almanac points to a hot summer in most areas, but cool and dry in the upper Midwest. It's also looking for drought prompting water management and wildfire problems in Florida and the western states. Elsewhere, look for more rain than normal.

Established in 1792, the Old Farmer's Almanac is North America's oldest continuously published periodical. The little yellow magazine still comes with the hole in the corner so it can hang in outhouses.

Also they do predict in the next couple years that the big cooling pattern will replace the warming cycle since the 1970's.
Below is a very good article on part of the story of Hansen and may explain how and why he has been bought off by Soros, though he is a "paid by your taxes" employee of NASA who should be trying to service you with the truth and not his own idealogy and big pocket money backers.

"For years, Hansen's group at GISS, as well as other leading climate scientists such as Mann and Briffa (creators of historical temperature reconstructions) have flaunted the rules of science by holding the details of their methodologies and algorithm's secret, making full scrutiny impossible. The best possible outcome of this incident will be if new pressure is brought to bear on these scientists to stop saying "trust me" and open their work to their peers for review. This is particularly important for activities such as Hansen's temperature data base at GISS. While measurement of temperature would seem straight forward, in actual fact the signal to noise ration is really low. Upward "adjustments" and fudge factors added by Hansen to the actual readings dwarf measured temperature increases, such that, for example, most reported warming in the US is actually from these adjustments, not measured increases.
In a week when Newsweek chose to argue that climate skeptics need to shut up, this incident actually proves why two sides are needed for a quality scientific debate. Hansen and his folks missed this Y2K bug because, as a man-made global warming cheerleader, he expected to see temperatures going up rapidly so he did not think to question the data. Mr. Hansen is world-famous, is a friend of luminaries like Al Gore, gets grants in quarter million dollar chunks from various global warming believers ( Soros). All his outlook and his incentives made him want the higher temperatures to be true. It took other people with different hypotheses about climate to see the recent temperature jump for what it was: An error."

Nasa weather Scandal

The claims against anthropogenic global warming skeptics are often the same: they're all shills for big oil or other industry wishing to poke holes in the 'consensus theory' of global warming (which isn't a consensus at all). Under the so-called "politicization of science" program, George Soros' (the favorite fundraiser of many democrats) has reportedly given as much as $720,000 to Hansen to help package his alarmist claims and get them pushed by the mainstream media .

How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely "NASA whistleblower" standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by Soros' Open Society Institute , which gave him "legal and media advice"?

That's right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros' flagship "philanthropy," by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI's "politicization of science" program.

So he got some big paychecks from Soros - but was there a quid pro quo? The evidence certainly indicates as much:

That may have meant that Hansen had media flacks help him get on the evening news to push his agenda and lawyers pressuring officials to let him spout his supposedly "censored" spiel for weeks in the name of advancing the global warming agenda.

Hansen even succeeded, with public pressure from his nightly news performances, in forcing NASA to change its media policies to his advantage. Had Hansen's OSI-funding been known, the public might have viewed the whole production differently. The outcome could have been different.

And, James Hansen is one of those NASA scientists who have control in the keeping and reporting of temperature models and readings, which have been found to be false and many have yet to be corrected. Makes it look more like George Soros bought off James Hansen and other scientists who push the propaganda of man made global warming.

Co2 warming?

I found some graphs that may help you understand this Co2 greenhouse effect.

Ok First this one shows the entire greenhouse gas percentages.

Water vapor the largest and most significant greenhouse gas at 95%

Now we will remove the water vapor and figure just the 5% remaining gases

This is the properties of each gas (heat retention potency)

Co2 with a value of 1 = 72.369% of 5%
Methane with a value of 21 = 7.199% of 5%
Nitrous oxide with a value of 310 = 19.000% 0f 5%
(Other gases with variable values) =1.432% of 5%

Now the percentage of man made sources within the 5% gases

Okay try to follow this
72.359% of 5% = 3.618% is total effect of all Co2 greenhouse gas
Now, of that amount man contributes 3.225% to the total of Co2
so we possibly contribute 0.117% of the "Co2" greenhouse effect

Ok now since we had a possible .06 degree warming over the last 100 years, from 1906 to 2006.(Actually the next 40 year cooling period will equal out the imbalance of
two warming periods and only one cooling period during that 100 years. So we might
actually say it is likely cooling or headed toward an ice age.)
If it be true at all that we had this change .06 degree change we can say actual 0.00702 degree of that amount could be from man's Co2. It is virtually nothing and getting rid of all man made source of Co2 for 0.00702 of degree in temperature change while going into another cooling period means nothing at all.

Water vapor the largest and most significant greenhouse gas at 95%
and 0.001% of all water vapor is manmade
The remaining 5% is
Co2 0.177%,
Methane 0.066%
Nitrous oxide 0.047%
Other gases 0.047%

Western Home decor