Apocalyptic California Global Warmists Continue To Scream At ‘Deniers’

Screen shot 2015-03-26 at 1.12.46 PM

Deer and wild turkeys grazing on my fields this week.

 

Half of the US is warm and half has endured two Factory Cutbacks in February Held Back U.S. Growth due to severe cold, blizzards and other global cooling weather.  This super cold winter that assailed more than half of the North American continent has caused big economic problems.

 

The eastern U.S. saw below-normal temperatures from Atlanta to New York in February and record snowfalls in New England. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s data showed February was the snowiest month on record for Boston, while Chicago, Buffalo and Cleveland had their coldest February on record.

The global warmists are pulling out their hair trying to scare us and here is their latest attempt:  Climate change will make food TASTE bad:

 

The cost of apples could rise as farmers try to combat damage from extreme temperatures on fruits like apples by using shade cloths.

 

Heat stress will have a particular impact on meat production with cattle and chickens suffering in higher temperatures and affecting their appetite.

 

This will mean meat is likely to be be tougher and more stingy.

 

Actually, the global warmists blame cows for this invisible problem that seems to be bothering mainly people in Los Angeles.  They tell us we shouldn’t have cows at all, forgetting that massive herds of not just wild bison and cattle wandered by the millions all over Eurasia and North America during the Ice Ages, elephants such as mastodons and hairy rhinos ran wild all over, too.

 

With all those many millions of huge CO2 polluting beasts, one would imagine there would have been no Ice Ages at all!  Instead, it was bitter cold over and over again for more than two million long years.

 

My favorite left wing lunatic site is Salon which is based in San Francisco and since it has been warm and dry in California, they are in utter hysterics and long for bitter cold.  They constantly whine that we are all doomed to roast to death unless we restart the Ice Ages.  Our end-of-the-world obsession is killing us: Climate denial and the apocalypse, GOP-style – Salon.com is a classic standing reality on its head.  The apocalyptic lunatics are the California global warmists yelling about how we are all going to die once the mountain of ice and snow covering much of the eastern half of the continent melts:

 

As the California drought enters its fourth year, it is threatening to strangle the splendid irrigation system that transformed the previously desolate Central Valley into some of the world’s most productive farmland and the scruffy Los Angeles Basin into one of the world’s great cities. Faced with potential disasters of this magnitude, one would think that responsible public officials would want to take action to moderate the effects of human-induced climate change.

 

‘Desolate’ means ‘dry/not good for agriculture/hot’.  And ‘scruffy’ refers to the desert conditions of natural Los Angeles.  The thinking here is, to save the totally artificial systems set up during the wettest century for California’s climate, we have to freeze half of the planet.  To do this, we reduce CO2 which forests and fields need to grow plants, thus causing temperatures to drop in this natural desert in California and via magic, water will again appear.

 

Of course, we can’t say with complete certainty that climate change is the cause of the drought.

 

Finally they admit this has nothing to do with global warming.  This is why these rats changed it to ‘climate change’ but their fix for this remains the same: prevent people in cold climates from burning fossil fuels to stay alive.

 

Why are so many people prepared to jump on the denial bandwagon? One answer might be that both officials and citizens cannot face the possibility of nationwide or worldwide disaster. Proponents of global warming, it could be argued, have predicted a future that is just too grim to contemplate. But this can’t be the entire story. In fact, we love to contemplate catastrophe.

 

The entire headline and article says that the ‘deniers’ are the ones predicting ‘catastrophe’ which is yet another rank lie by the warmists.  On top of that, the warmist writing this crazy article admits he and his ilk LOVE to contemplate catastrophe.  They do this nonstop.

 

Their ‘grim future’ means Greenland could host Vikings again.  This grim forecast is for the tree line in the Northern Hemisphere to move northwards.  It includes a much longer growing season in North America and Russia (oh, the horrors!) and people in the Northern Hemisphere wouldn’t have to move to Florida to get warm.

 

sunset borger

side picture begging boneEmail:

emeinel@fairpoint.net

MAILING ADDRESS:

EMS NEWS

209 Greenhollow Rd

Petersburgh, NY 12138

Make checks out to ‘Elaine Supkis’

Click on the Pegasus icon on the right sidebar to donate via Paypal.

 

sunset borger

38 Comments

Filed under weather news

38 responses to “Apocalyptic California Global Warmists Continue To Scream At ‘Deniers’

  1. Jim R

    If they’re worried about CO2, you’d think they would do a few basic things:
    1. Never shop at WalMart, which is just like shopping at China, which doesn’t care about CO2.
    2. Protest the effort to start WWIII with Russia in eastern Europe. War is the stupidest waste of carbon of all time.
    3. Go to tropical places and try to stop the bulldozers. Because forests absorb the stuff, on a continuing basis. Cutting down forests means it doesn’t get absorbed.

  2. Sunger

    Elaine said: “My favorite left wing lunatic site is Salon which is based in San Francisco and since it has been warm and dry in California, they are in utter hysterics and long for bitter cold.”

    Salon is a media enterprise- not an accredited scientific source. You should be aware of this Elaine- that is if you are interested in the best scientific interpretations instead instead of hysteria-laden rants. Media organizations report these scientific findings but don’t always interpret them correctly.

    Elaine said: “Of course, we can’t say with complete certainty that climate change is the cause of the drought.

    We can’t duplicate an entire global ecosystem in the lab and then add or subtract variables such as carbon dioxide levels. We have to do the best studies and then extrapolate. For instance, the Greenland ice cores help us figure climate conditions from thousands of years ago but we cannot actually duplicate the climate conditions from thousands of years ago. The same with astrophysics and many fields of study such as paleontology.

    Elaine said: “”Finally they admit this[california drought] has nothing to do with global warming. This is why these rats changed it to ‘climate change’ but their fix for this remains the same: prevent people in cold climates from burning fossil fuels to stay alive.”

    An climate event of the magnitude of the California drought is complicated
    and is extremely likely to have strong links with global warming. However, scientists are generally extremely conservative in making connections on such a large scale and won’t make iron-clad conclusions as to a global warming scenario unless all the facts can be accounted for because they are aware that agenda-laden bloggers and their type will try to impeach the credibility of the scientific study.

    CHALLENGE TO ELAINE

    Come up with ANY HISTORICAL EVIDENCE that the scientific community deals in scams and dishonesty in order to promote political and personal enrichment goals.

    And please document these charges that scientists make up data and false claims and then protect each others roles in the scam.

    Come on Elaine- time to ante up.

    ΩΩΩ

    ELAINE: good lord, the history of science is full of scams, enforced stupidity, liars persuading governments to fund fake science, etc. When rulers want something scientists rush in to create lies to back up whatever rulers want and they are richly rewarded for this while truth telling scientists are often persecuted or even murdered.

  3. “Their ‘grim future’ means Greenland could host Vikings again. This grim forecast is for the tree line in the Northern Hemisphere to move northwards. It includes a much longer growing season in North America and Russia (oh, the horrors!) and people in the Northern Hemisphere wouldn’t have to move to Florida to get warm.”

    But the real grim future is that California, the PNW, the SW, Pacific Canada and Alaska bake while everything east of the Rockies gets cast into bitter cold. Also, Greenland melts… until the North Atlantic Current stops, restarting the Ice Ages anew.

  4. Peter C.

    Sunger… pop over to Watts up with That and read about Mr Mann and the hockey stick plus the hiding of the little ice age and middle ages warming period..its all there if you care to read up.

  5. Moe

    Mmmm, wild turkey! Wonder if they’re tough, and stringy after a harsh winter?

  6. emsnews

    There is ZERO proof that Ice Ages BEGAN due to ice melting in Greenland. None what so ever period.

    All Ice Ages begin the same way long AFTER the Interglacial peaks. We are past our own Interglacial Peak and the ‘warm’ we see today is far below the global warm 8,000 years ago, or 1,000 years ago!

    We are sliding into another Ice Age and Greenland ain’t melting. It still is encased in more ice and is much colder than during the Medieval Warm Period.

    Then, there was much, much greater melting in Greenland and we didn’t have an Ice Age caused by this, we did have a cooling cycle caused by solar/planetary movements which are periodic and easily predicted.

    This is why global warming is impossible, in no time in the last 2 million years has the planet warmed and warmed. And previous Interglacials were ALL warmer than the present one.

  7. Henry

    Most human endeavors can be reduced to their lowest common denominators which are sex or money. Global warming/Climate change is all about the money. Governments are desperate to increase revenues without taxing the rich and powerful. The carbon taxes are the perfect answer. These taxes will be borne by the average person; they are very regressive. Propagandize people to a sufficient degree and they will be lining up to pay 25% more to heat their homes.

  8. emsnews

    They are literally taxing THIN AIR. Not even ‘pollution’. Thin effing air.

    They love this! And if they convince fools that they will roast to death if the rich don’t tax thin air, all the better.

    Problem: a huge millions of people are NOT roasting to death, they are freezing cold with blizzards killing them. So the propaganda is faltering and will eventually fail.

    IF CALIFORNIA HATES GLOBAL WARMING they can outlaw cars in California and outlaw burning of any fossil fuels, ever and live in tiny houses, etc.

    Meanwhile, those of us who are freezing can go on as normal. Everyone will be happy and 80% of the population of California will flee after they find out they are forbidden the use of cars, etc.

  9. ziff

    you missed this one http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/03/whats-going-on-in-the-north-atlantic/

    read the comments @ 30 , 63? , there is some hanky panky about whether the NA conveyor is slowing, or not

  10. Seraphim

    @the global warmists blame cows for this invisible problem that seems to be bothering mainly people in Los Angeles. They tell us we shouldn’t have cows at all

    But they don’t tell us why although the answer was known ten years ago
    @http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_6040000/newsid_6046900/6046962.stm

    “Cow farts ‘harming the planet'”

    “Cows’ farting and burping must be brought under control because they’re causing global warming problems, a climate change expert has warned.
    Just one cow gives off enough harmful methane gas in a single day to fill around 400 litre bottles, which is really bad for the environment.
    The gas goes up into the atmosphere and makes the hole in the ozone layer bigger, worsening global warming.
    Dr Chris Jardine says the government must do more to halt the gassy problem.
    Get a moo-ve on and try our cow quiz!
    And it’s not just cows – sheep and goats also produce methane, which is 20 times more harmful to the environment than carbon dioxide.
    Dr Jardine, from Oxford University, said that the government needs to give more help to farmers.”

  11. Jim R

    ziff,

    What’s happening to the Gulf Stream is not so much a slowing as it is meandering.

    The northern branch of the THC has historically transported heat from the tropical branches of the system to the North Atlantic. Its northern terminus meanders around. In recent years it has drifted away from the coast of North America, leaving Elaine in the cold.

  12. emsnews

    Why would it ‘meander’?

    It comes from the southern Atlantic Ocean. As solar activity weakens, the oceans don’t warm up as much as during high sunspot activity level periods. So the warm water flow weakens.

    GREENLAND ISN”T MELTING. It ceased melting three years ago so why would it cause this to happen today when it didn’t happen in 1998 when we had our peak solar cycle and strong el Nino?

    THEN it should have happened, not today when the ice on the half of the north pole next to the Atlantic Ocean is freezing more than the Pacific side? Eh?

    Mixing up cause and effect is common with ‘global climate experts’ who believe in ‘global warming’. They do this DELIBERATELY and no one can stop them from lying.

  13. Jim R

    Fluid dynamics. Same reason the jet stream meanders in the air. Same reason the Mississippi River meanders.

    But in recent years, the northern terminus of the Gulf Stream has been following the ice sheet, or really, the ice sheet is what propels this branch of the THC. So ice sheets move around, expand, contract, and the Gulf Stream follows them.

    I could explain why that is, but it’s all sciency and confusing to all y’all.

  14. ziff

    Jim you should tell that to the people at Realclimate, i’m a little confused myself , salinity and cold water, cold water sinks fresh water floats, so whats driving the thing? Hot water cools where theres ice i think you are saying.

  15. Jim R

    Ice drives the thing. Ice is absolutely crucial to the Earth’s climate.
    As for the Gulf Stream, and this was a relatively recent discovery, it is little drops of brine that form as seawater spray falls on the ice. So it happens all around the edge of the ice sheet, and not in the middle. Salt water falls on the ice, and has a lower melting point than the ice. The salty drops of liquid actually work their way through the ice, (temp has to be below freezing for all this to work) and as fresh water is removed by the freezing process it becomes concentrated cold brine with a lower freezing point than the original seawater.
    So these little drops of cold brine come dripping out of the bottom of the floating ice. Like so many natural phenomena, you think of the drops as small, but over an area the size of a continent, they add up to a huge flow of brine. This cold heavy brine sinks, and pulls in the warmer surface water toward the ice. And that propels the northern end of the THC. Somewhere in the tropics, about a thousand years from now, the cold brine emerges in an upwelling (maybe driven by seafloor volcanism, nobody knows) and causes an El Nino or something.

    Now, whether the ice is growing or shrinking, I cannot tell you, and neither can Elaine. However, what she has been saying is true — the last year or two have not followed the ‘hockey stick’ trend of the alarmists. The polar ice caps have not disappeared.

    The bottom line is, Global Warming has become a political phenomenon and as such, has little to do with science any more. If they were more realistic, their claims would be down there below mag-9 earthquakes and asteroid strikes and super-volcanoes on the list of things to worry about. And they will not cure it with financial fraud (which is the proposed solution). In fact, everything actually done by the elites has been making it worse (such as bulldozing tropical forests).

    ΩΩΩ

    ELAINE: Earth teemed with life INCLUDING GREENLAND AND ANTARCTICA up until 2.5 million years ago when, TOTALLY NEW CLIMATE happened which has these LONG BOUTS OF SEVERE ICE with eternal winter in Greenland and Antarctica with no summer melt down and trees growing.

    Once upon a time trees grew in Antarctica. Marsupials lived there and flowers came out in summer, etc. The ENTIRE EARTH WAS MUCH WARMER. Humans were happy apes living not only in Africa but all over Eurasia.

    Then the Ice Ages suddenly began and the struggle to survive was severe and very few ape/humans survived it and this is why our brains grew like crazy for the last million years: surviving this ‘wonderful climate’ is very hard work.

  16. anon

    Radioactivity?

    10,000 Dead Sea Lions Wash Up In California, Officials …
    yournewswire.com/10000-dead-sea-lions-wash-up-in-california-officials…
    3 days ago – 10000 baby sea lions have washed up dead on a California island, with experts calling the unexplained deaths a ‘crisis’ and ‘ are washing …

  17. ziff

    so the salt melts ice, yes. but the result should be less salty a least near the contact but its just sinking cause its cold. So the conveyor must be just cold water sinking out of the arctic, what would drive warm water north on its own?

  18. JimmyJ

    Global warming climate change isn’t simply political, its religion. If it were political there would be Marxist style warmists doing on the ground action up here in Canada’s boreal forests, protesting clear cuts by blowing up equipment. Instead they tend to pontificate and send tithe money to bought off NGOs from the safety of their Audi or condo on their iPhone.

  19. emsnews

    The stupid thing here is, we are on the verge of another Ice Age and that will kill off the vast majority of humans.

    And they are yapping about us roasting to death. Good lord.

  20. Jim R

    No, ziff, the salt does not get more dilute by melting the ice. That would happen at room temperature. The saltwater gets saltier because it is in ice that is freezing at a temperature below 32°. The freezing ice takes water out of the drops, leaving colder denser brine with an even lower freezing point. And because they are colder and denser, the drops work their way down through the ice and fall out the bottom.

    The brine drops fall, and in so doing they entrain surface water that wouldn’t otherwise sink. But it’s all very cold, and it accounts for the cold water that is always found at the bottom of the ocean. If the oceans were stagnant and did not turn over, the water at the bottom would be hot from volcanism. Until it did turn over from the heat, anyway.

    And, the tropics teemed with life until just very recently. Mowing down all those trees to plant “green renewable energy” crops is just stupid. As are the overfishing and pollution that are killing off the sea lions.

  21. Seraphim

    Is it the meandering of the Gulf Stream or the ice or radioactivity which drives the “Global Warming”?
    Neither. The cows and sheep farted. Now, of course the humans have a contribution too. It is human activity induced Global Warming after all! 7 billion farting and burping! And growing. 9 billon by 2040, 11 billion by 2050. We risk to be asphyxiated before we roast. Anyhow, we’ll be ashes by then.

  22. ziff

    from wiki
    Wind-driven surface currents (such as the Gulf Stream) travel polewards from the equatorial Atlantic Ocean, cooling en route, and eventually sinking at high latitudes (forming North Atlantic Deep Water). This dense water then flows into the ocean basins. While the bulk of it upwells in the Southern Ocean, the oldest waters (with a transit time of around 1000 years)

    so why do we even need arctic ice in the discussion , what a mess

  23. Mr Bill

    I am responding to the comments from Jim R. I pretty much agree with his comments. I agree this topic is sciency and confusing. But, I think there are a few basic fundamental science principles that should be fairly clear and can shine some qualitative light on some of the important cause and effect issues.

    1. Conservation and Continuity of Matter, basically says that, in a closed system (no matter either entering or leaving the system), matter can be neither created nor destroyed. However, the contained matter can be changed from one form to another. That, is, C can be converted to CO2 by burning fuel, CO2 converted to CaCO3 by adding lime or converted back to C by plants.

    2. Conservation and Continuity of Energy (Momentum, Forces, Work, Heat, etc) basically says that, in a closed system (no energy either entering or leaving the system), energy can be neither created nor destroyed. However, the contained energy can be changed from one form to another (momentum, velocity, pressure, elevation, etc)..

    3. While the above two items deal with the conservation and continuity issue, they do not address how the matter or energy changes as it moves within the closed systems. For that, Thermodynamics and Fluid Dynamics
    provide thet insight. All of this is more complex and involves more factors, but this is a good start. Suffice that the movement and form changes, both matter and energy, will always move in a direction from point A to point B only when Point A is at a higher “total energy” level than point B. The rate of movement from point A to point B will increase as the difference between
    the “total energy” between point A and Point B. If the movement meanders to the left, there is an energy difference from the right steering it, and vice versa. I suspect there are some under water eddies and swirls influencing the major flow patterns. Salinity, water and air temperature only indirectly effect water density, etc.I have not done the analysis, but I seriously doubt that the land mass and air mass factors that the warmists scream about have any short or medium impact, if at all, on the deep ocean.

    For these astronomical issues, I think it is reasonable to assume the earth and its atmosphere may be considered to be reasonable approximates of closed systems, one for energy and one for matter. the several This is not entirely true, because we know there is energy flowing both into and out of the system, but we can strive to account for the energy input from the sun etc and the energy reflected back out into space.The same holds for matter coming in or out , but is not important in the climate change / global warming dialogs.

    Several decades ago, well before the Climate Change/ Global Warming nonsense, climatologists set out to solve the Navier Stokes equations to enough accuracy to predict global weather patterns.These are the main equations for Fluid Dynamics, but are complex nonlinear 3D equations that are quite correct , but cannot be solved in general.form. Assumptions and approximations are required. The best climate modeling scientists using the most valid equations could not use the most powerful computers available to adequately reach any meaningful accuracy. I understand this was a key example leading to “Chaos Theory” – which, in most simple terms, says that
    deterministic chaos (randomness and unpredictability) sets in when the precision of input information factors fall below the finite data limits.

    Well, I planned to be brief, but I could not. Sorry! I leave with this one image,
    A water hose in a swimming pool.The water in the pool is mostly calm. The water from the hose is coming out as a steam, It is a much higher velocity than the surrounding pool. You can feel it, but further away, the stream velocity has dissipated and is back to the overall pool velocity, but the hose may have directed more circulating velocity.for the pool. But, again, in the end, it was a shift in the higher “total energy” against a lower “total energy” that occurred as time advanced.

  24. emsnews

    It was ridiculously easy to predict many things based entirely and ONLY on sun spot levels with a bit of a mix from volcanic events. All the complications are SILLY.

    We know a lot of details and thus lost sight of the simple process at work: more sunspots=warmer climate and more volcanoes=temporary colder with one big hitch: every Interglacial is very short and every Ice Age is ten times longer and the Ice Ages have lots of peaks and valleys due to sun spot activity levels going from near null to half as strong as Interglacials.

  25. Jim R

    Mr. Bill,

    Conservation laws are all well and good, but we must remember that the Earth is not a closed system.

    It receives heat and light from this fusion reactor on one side, and loses heat to the cold of the cosmos on the other. Really, there is a lot more of the cold in the universe, and it must be this way because the fusion reactor is so very hot. So it’s less than 1% Sun and more than 99% cosmos. If either of these things varies, it will affect the balance of heat, which also means it will affect air and water circulation patterns and the average climate.

    And, it is necessary (as far as we know) to live on a planet where water exists in all three phases. If it were all ice, like on Mars or the moons of the outer planets, life would have a hard time, or not exist at all. And if all the water were in the form of a gas, it would be like Venus, where the H2O has long since evaporated into space and left it dry and way too hot. Also no good.

    As for the CO2 level in the atmosphere, its heat-retention is a bone of con-tention.

  26. anon

    I was over at ‘crooks and liars’ [they are liars -imo- the owner and writers there]. lotsa ‘climate fear’ there.

    http://crooksandliars.com/2015/03/more-bad-news-antarctica-study-shows

  27. anon

    re, The stupid thing here is, we are on the verge of another Ice Age and that will kill off the vast majority of humans.

    And they are yapping about us roasting to death.
    WHO IS THEY? THE GORES, ETC? Or Leonas Ruebensteins ‘little people’?

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/gallup-concern-about-environment-down-americans-worry-least-about

  28. emsnews

    Obama and Kerry made ‘global warming in California’ their BIG BIG Business they are pushing this relentlessly even asking their followers to persecute and harass anyone who is a scientist if they don’t pretend we are all roasting to death, too.

  29. LOU

    The propaganda isnt going over.

  30. Mr Bill

    Jim R.,

    Again, I basically agree with your response back to to me. Indeed, I agree that the earth systems, both energy and matter, are not closed systems. Actually, I commented that the earth systems ere not closed systems, but making the assumption that they are closed systems makes it easier for readers to “wrap their heads” around the important concepts.

    For example, if we are only interested in exploring the forces and energies directly influencing water currents in certain regions, we might assume that solar radiation is not important to the issue. This is basically equivalent to assuming the earth energy system is at least approximately a closed system. On the other hand, if we are interested in exploring the heating and cooling in the earth’s atmosphere, then we make the assumption that the earth energy system is not closed. But, once we make the open system assumption, we must proceed with added assumptions about how to account for the energy energy entry and exit from our open system. We can assume to ignore what is happening on the sun and thus rely on the
    “Solar Constant” (about 1.366 kilowatt per square meter of atmospheric surface perpendicular to the incoming solar radiation), measured by satellite instruments. Further, we can assume that the “Solar Constant” is constant or assume that the solar constant varies during the year or assume the “Solar Constant” cycles on an approximate 10 year period.
    My summary point is that exploring these types of systems whether closed or open require many assumptions to be examined and decided upon. Then the preceding assumptions may give rise to examining and deciding upon other assumptions. .If we are following the Scientific Method, then we must eventually test our analyses and confirm the validity of the analysis and the various assumptions.

    Regarding the exiting energy from the earth system, we need to consider there are 3 heat transfer mechanisms – conduction, convection and radiation. Conduction occurs in a stagnant environment at approaches and is typically very slow. Convection occurs via a flowing mass that moves the heat along with the flow. Radiation occurs via wave transfer from a hot object to a cooler object. But matter being radiated by a high temperature source only absorbs a fraction of the radiation and emits a different fraction of heat back out. The conduction and convection are not involved with heat transfer into or out of the earth system. So, only radiation is involved with both the energy input and output for the earth system. I assume all of the solar radiation occurs during daylight periods across the system, There is also a daylight impact of energy reflection out of the system via clouds and other reflective surfaces The link below has a fairly good illustration for the overall steps in the process.

    My final point here deals with the absorption and emission of energy, mostly for gases m the atmosphere. One of the most critical hypotheses for global warming / climate change supporters is related to the relative values of the solar radiation adsorption and emission factors for CO2. are such that they will cause CO2 to heat up and eventually cause the atmosphere to become hotter and even cause more water vapor to build up in the atmosphere. My critical question is CO2 relative to what else? The overall radiation adsorption / emission depends on both the above factors and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The same is to other gases in the atmosphere: water vapor, ozone, flourocarbons, methane and others. Some of these gases have a worse heat effect than CO2, but are not even included in the dialog. All kinds of reasons to ignore other gases are given – water vapor and methane are natural and we just can;t do anything – flourocarbons and other gases for new industrial apps are so new that we haven’t measured them and so forth. But CO2 is measured and we can control it by reducing fossil fuels use. Yeah, that’s it. But you folks must accept our fake correlation between higher climate temperature and higher CO2 levels.

    All said and done, we can do a lot of legit analysis of our earth system. It is probably a good idea to pursue a better understanding. But it surely seems that the CO2 / Global Warming / Climate Change discussion is a big crock of Propaganda! How can it be anything else when we scan the landscape to find major contradictions such as major war efforts to control fossil fuels, major marketing to purchase more energy consuming devices, leaders and elites routinely using high fossil fuel services, high fossil fuel military consumption. Do we seem to have a real life conflict here?

    http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Solar%20radiation

  31. Jim R

    Yes to all that. It’s a dynamic system with lots of variables.

    And the elites are hypocrites.

    Somewhere I read that if the Earth were an ideal blackbody radiator, based on its distance from the Sun and assuming space is at absolute zero, the average temperature would be something like thirty below.

    The real climate is warmer than that because the atmosphere retains heat. The analogy to a greenhouse goes back to the 19th century scientists who put the puzzle together for the first time.

    And CO2 contrubutes to this greenhouse effect. Arrhenius thought a little warming would be a good thing, because he lived in Sweden, where it is cold.

    The relationship between sunspots and the climate is quite a tricky one, because the sunspots don’t actually amount to that much compared to the overall output of the Sun. And they are not as bright. They are dark spots on the surface of the Sun. Furthermore, most of the gas ejected in CMEs never hits the Earth, it goes flying off in some other direction.

    But historically, there has been a correlation between climactic temperature fluctuations and sunspot activity. … to be continued maybe

  32. Mr Bill

    Jim R,

    I want to thank you for engaging in our dialogs. I had read some of your prior comments, but never responded until now. I really appreciated the chat exchange. I have a few more comments on your latest response, then on to another topic. I do hope we can have further online chats in the future.

    First, radiation heat transfer concepts and calculations are really sciency and messy., but they are doable, at least to some approximation. The whole topic gets into beams moving thru empty space with factors that block and prevent the Sun (source) from “seeing” the Earth (receiver) without any interference between the two. Also the angle and extent the beam hits the earth’s outer atmosphere. It involves distributions of beam wavelengths from the source and the receiver. The absolute temperatures ( degF +460 or degC +273) for both source and receiver raised to the 4th power is required. The heat absorption and emission factors for the source and receiver must be determined. Messy stuff! By the way a “black body” is any source or receiver with both their absorption and emission factors equal 1.0. This basically means a “black body” absorbs 100 percent of the radiation energy hitting the body and then emits or reradiates 100 percent of the energy it has just absorbed. All radiation energy moves from high temperature to low temperature. In the case of the sun, it radiates energy to the earth, but the earth does not reradiate back to the sun, Rather, it reradiates toward colder space. The sun is considered to be approximately “black body”, but he earth system is not.
    So, if somehow the earth became a “black body”, the fraction of the energy it was retaining is now fully emitted. Thus, we have less net energy in the earth system and the conduction / convection eventually redistributes what is there and ultimately reach a lower temperature. I can’t say what the new end temperature would be. But yes, the earth would cool because it would retain less heat as a “black body”.

    But the Solar Constant route based on satellite measurements really simplifies things. The Solar Constant is the total radiation beam energy reaching the outer earth atmosphere. It averages about 1.366 kilowatt per square meter at the outer atmosphere but, due to geometry and angle factors, only about 1/4 of that outer atmosphere radiation energy makes it near the earth surface. But once the net energy radiating into less the energy reradiation and reflected energy exiting the earth system, conduction and convection takes over. The link below plots the measured Solar Constant from about 1979 to 2006. The plot shows short term variations in the Solar Constant, but the most interesting point was the very distinctive 10 year cycle with the low points occurring 1n 1986, 1996 and 2006. The peak to peak varianion is .only about +/- 1 watt per square meter, well less than 1 percent variation. And, at first glance it does hint that such variation may be closely linked to the “severe” heating and cooling on the earth in recent decades. If such a correlation was valid, the implications would be staggering – that is, this suggests that very small variations in the radiation energy from he sun may account for major climate impacts on earth.

    Right, Elaine?

    Regarding CO2 gas, it is well recognized that CO2 retains heat. There are data sets to account for the absorption and emission factors for CO2, H2o, CH4 and other gases in the design and operation of high temperature furnaces and other process equipment. It is well known that the overall impact on heat retention of CO2 and other specific gases are proportional to the amount of the gas contained in the specific environment. I think there is valid evidence that CO2 content in the atmosphere..This is valid and solid science. This not a new or surprising situation. You said 19th century scientists were aware of the greenhouse effect.

    When the Global Warming wave began a couple decades back, I was encouraged. I was aware of the complex multiivariable modeling (I think at Harvard) in the early 70’s that predicted that several important resources across the board would deplete over the next, say 100 years. Soon, it was back to business and move on – spend, consume, debt, growth, lot limited growth. It happened then, and it happen now. The push for Global Warming/Climate Change has fully evolved to a massive CO2 Reduction Plan. Most efforts seem to be almost exclusive focus on CO2 concentration virus “Planet Temperature”. This first problem is reducing a clear multivariable case to essentially a one variable case. Too much being ignored off the bat for good science.The mantra is “Control of CO2 is the only way we should Control the “Planet Temperature” and resultant climate.” HMM!

    And there are many examples where other gases of equal or greater concern are ignored. There are documented reports of fake and tampered data files. What is this carbon credit trade – does this lower CO2 or simply move it around? Charges of blackballing disagreeable researchers?
    This effort seems to be so political and, propaganda and scandals and scams. This plan is not the way to go. More important environmental issues are being mostly ignored in favor for supporting a CO2 scam.

    We need to wake up. Let’s watch the oil trains crash and burn with minimum regulation. Let’s watch fracking wells punch through aquifers and contaminate a community water source. Let’s watch some states rise in earthquake activity due to fracking activity. ETC, ETC, ETC And do you notice that all of these are related to more oil and gas and more CO2, not less.

    http://www.ips.gov.au/Category/Educational/The%20Sun%20and%20Solar%20Activity/General%20Info/Solar_Constant.pdf

  33. Jim R

    … continued.

    where was I? Oh, yeah. Without an atmosphere, our average temperature would be about the same as the average temperature of the Moon. Several tens of degrees below freezing. So the only reason we have a non-ice climate at all is because of the greenhouse effect. Most of that effect is from water vapor.

    Elaine goes on about the Sun, I think, because here dad was one of the pioneers in the study of the Sun. They had been building telescopes for centuries to get better views of distant stars, but few astronomers spent much time looking at the Sun. Like the best of science, it starts with a simple question: “I wonder what goes on inside it?” and of course, the answer is quite complex and mostly unknown. But they started doing things like taking doppler measurements of the spectral lines to see vibrations in the Sun’s surface, and making inferences from that about its internal structure, much the way earth scientists gain insight into the Earth from the way it vibrates after earthquakes.

    Dr. Aden Meinel built the Kitt Peak observatory to watch the Sun. He had some help, of course, but that is a fair statement.

    By now, NASA has a network of deep space satellites that take pictures of the Sun from all angles and wavelengths. If it burps, they will analyze the event before it can even stir up an aurora here.

    Anywho, the climate scientists (they aren’t all involved in political/religious debate) began to wonder about the correlation between sunspots and the climate. Someone had observed a correlation between historic crop yields and sunspot cycles. And a well-known interval of low sunspot activity in the 17th century corresponded with an interval of chilly weather.

    So there’s this question: are these phenomena causally related? And, how?

    One of the important variables in explaining the climate is whether clouds form way up high in the stratosphere, or down low to the ground. One type of cloud increases the Earth’s albedo more than the other, especially in the infrared. Can’t remember which right now. I think the high clouds result in a colder climate.

    Next, an intermediate answer came from a study of rare isotopes of common elements, and how they have varied over time. Carbon 14 is not the only one — there is a beryllium isotope that was found to vary along with sunspots in an 11 year cycle. And, studies of ice cores and such, showed that variations in the abundance of this isotope also followed that sunspot minimum back in the 17th century. This beryllim isotope is created when cosmic rays smash into the atoms of the air and knock some peices off their nuclei. So now a trace of beryllium in the air, is a proxy for cosmic rays, is a proxy for sunspots. And now we have (maybe) a record of sunspots going back 100,000 years.

    Apparently it is the magnetic field which accompanies sunspots, deflecting cosmic ray particles way out in space so they miss the Earth. Or not, and allowing them to hit the Earth.

    Which brings me to this experimental setup at CERN:
    http://cloud.web.cern.ch/content/cloud-project

    What isn’t obvious from that web page is that this project was damned with faint praise by the scientific grant-granting powers that be. They didn’t try to censor the results or prohibit the experiment, but it is quietly ignored.

    Bottom line: the high-cloud (from cosmic-ray-induced seeding) versus low-cloud effect on the global heat budget may turn out to be more important than the current level of CO2.

  34. Mr Bill

    Jim R,

    Ell, I’m back to this particular EMS article, but for the last time. I waned to comment on your reference to the CERN CLOUD project. But, more importantly, I want to share with you and and other EMS readers some very simple, but important and useful equation from Radiation Physics.

    First, my reppnse to the CERN link. I was encouraged that they ere running controlled experiments to better understand the atmospheric cloud and aresol issues. I had earlier spoken about the reflection of radiation energy back into space as a separate issue from the heat adsorption / emission.
    It is the clouds (water droplets) and aerosols (small solid particles and other droplets) that are mostly involved in the reflection heat loss back to space. And, of course the more reflection back to space, the cooler the atmosphere below the clouds. That may be good if there is climate warming, but it may not be good for climate cooling.

    All The equations I will show here are based on the Planck distribution law,
    which relates the radiation energy associated with any wavelength and absolute temperatures. It typically is shown as a series of curves with a steep maximum peak that shows the black body energy being radiated on the Y axis and the radiation energy wavelength on the X axis. There is often a separate curve plot for different absolute temperatures. From this basic Planck law and use of some “universal canstants” (like speed of light. etc), come the other equations I show below. The equations are at the heart of this discussion.

    Let me assign symbols to the various paramers I will use in the equations
    which follow.

    Q1 = radiation energy being emitted from the hot source (1), watt per
    square meter. This is black body energy, with both absorption
    factor and emission factor = 1.
    T = absolute temperature, degK. DegK = DegC + 273
    LW = wavelenght in general, micron
    LWmax = wavelength where the Planck curve is at its maximum peak for
    a specific absolute temperature, micron.
    SC = solar constant, watt per square meter. This is the total radiation
    energy arriving from the sun (1) at the outer atmosphere of
    the receiving earth system (2) after traveling thru empty space,
    D1 = Diameter of the hot radiation emitting source (sun), miles.
    R12 = Distance between the hot source (1) and the cooler reciever (2),
    miles.

    Wein Constant = 0.2896 cm x degK

    Stephan Boltzmann Constant = 5.6704 x EE(-8) watt /( square meter
    x K to the 4th power)

    These constants are based on the most current published “universal constants” from physics. :

    .
    Wein Law :

    T = 0.2896 / WLmax

    Estimates of WL max for the solar radiation is
    0,5 micron or 0.5 x EE(-4) cm

    So, the radiating temperature of the sun, T is estimated as

    T = (0.2896) / (0.5 x EE-4) = 5792 degK = 5529 degC

    Stephan Boltzmaa Law:

    Q1 = (5.6704 x EE(-8)) x (T to the 4th power)

    T = 5792 degK was estimated with the Wein equation T.

    So, the radiation energy emitted from the sun (black body) is

    Q1 = 5.6704 x EE(-8) x 1.125419 x EE(+15)

    Q1 = 63.8 x EE(+6) or 63.8 million watts per square meter

    SC Calculation

    SC = (0.25 x Q1) * (D1 / R12) squared

    Q1 = 63.8 x EE(+6) watts per square meter
    D1 = 8.60 x EE(+5) miles
    R12 = 92.9 x EE(+6) miles

    D!/R12 = 8.60 x EE(+5) / 92.9 x EE(+6)
    = 9.257 x EE(-3)

    So, SC, the solar contant at the earth’s outer atmosphere is

    SC = 0.25 x * 63.8 x EE(+6) x9.257 x EE(-3) x 9.257 x EE(-3)

    SC = 1366.8 watts per square meter

    This estimate compares very well with 1366 watts per square meter,
    . the current reported average value for the Solar constant measured
    by satellites.

    Finally, here is a calculation from a research paper that I found. It used the Wein law and the Stephan Boltzmann law to estimate the earth temperature and the heat being radiated from the earth, assuming BLACK BODY. The estimate started with an estimated WLmax = 11.3 microns for the earth’s emitted radiation (assumed earth is black body).

    So,

    T = 0.2896 / (11.3 x EE(-4))
    T = 256 degK or -17 degC

    and (now earth is the source (1)

    Qe = Q1 = 5.6704 x EE(-8)) x (256 x 256 x 256 x256)
    Q1 = 5.6704 xEE(-8) x 4.2950 x EE(+9)
    Q1 = 243.5 watts/ square meter.

    being reradiated into an assumed empty space.

    And another arbitrary case to show the effect of the earth radiation temperature, say T = 273 degK or 0 degC

    LWmax = 0.2896 / 273 = 10.6 microns
    Q1 = 5.6704 xEE(-8) x 5.5546 x EE(+9)
    Q1 = 315.0 watts / square meter.

    We could go on. Think about the implications of the last two examples.
    We have a case where radiation input is mostly constant. and radiation output is dependent on the earth temperature. profile

  35. emsnews

    Yes, clouds are the Great Reflectors but even more, massive glaciers when they cover much of North America and Europe reflect tremendous amounts of solar energy.

    Oceans soak up energy, land, less so and ice virtually none. This is why, each time Ice Ages begin, they grip the land for far longer than the Interglacials which are extremely short.

    It takes tremendous activity of the sun to suddenly warm up each Interglacial very rapidly.

  36. Jim R

    Infrared is more important to the climate than visible light. Of course, visible matters as much of it is reduced to infrared when it is absorbed by something. Not near-visible infrared at 1µm but the long-wave IR, as per Mr. Bill’s calculations above. Those contentious gases like CH4 and CO2 absorb long wave IR.

    And yeah, an ice sheet might as well be a mirror, at least in the visible. Pretty reflective in IR as well, but water ice does absorb some. But unless the glaciation event is quite severe, it always leaves quite a lot of the ocean NOT covered, while clouds will envelop the whole planet, tropics and all.

    It is those high clouds that cause cooling, as they reflect everything before bad old CO2 has a shot at it. That is, the visible AND infrared does not go through as much of the atmosphere but just bounces back into space.

    This is why volcanic activity has such a profound effect on the climate. The entire sky everywhere has a thin scrim of gray haze, as viewed from the ground. From space, it is an increase in the planet’s sunlit brightness, particularly in the infrared.

    Not a closed system, and also not a blackbody.

  37. Elaine Supkis

    Wrong.

    All Ice Ages feature FEWER clouds. Not more. The sun shines on the planet but doesn’t heat it up until it suddenly, virtually overnight, ‘turns on’ again and melts the vast majority of the ice.

  38. Christian W

    I found this Golden Oldie by Elaine🙂

    https://emsnews1.wordpress.com/2009/02/14/afghani-religious-warriors-attack-american-imperial-base-killing-soldiers/#more-99

    Great reading, especially today when the US is using Sunni fighters on it’s own side for the heavy lifting. (Obviously once the dust settles the Arab coalition will deal with the pesky Jews and Americans, I bet both sides are sharpening their daggers for that day – which will be their Real War, if we ever get that far…).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s