- This topic has 16 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Note: this article supports the contention of my brother Peter, a geologist, that most of his peers do NOT accept the global warming hypothesis. This article is interesting in suggesting a self-regulating mechanism of the earth to maintain balance and harmony in the overall system, even while pertubations occurs on the surface. In Sun-Moon-Earth Alchemy (Greater Kan & Li), I present a similar hypothesis – that most people are in fear of SURFACE changes on the earth’s crust where they live, but that the overall system is moving always into higher levels of harmony and balance. Best to let go of your fear and trust the process of surface change, which humans obvioiusly need. – Michael Thanks to Thorny/Carl for the article.
Polar Ice Cap Studies Refute Catastrophic Global Warming Theories
by James M. Taylor (December 16, 2001)
A series of recent studies shows that the polar ice caps, which should be shrinking if dire global warming theories are correct, are maintaining their mass and in fact growing slightly. The studies suggest satellite temperature readings, which indicate no global warming of the lower atmosphere, are more reliable than surface temperature readings, taken by humans under varying conditions, that had indicated a slow, gradual warming.A study published in the December 3, 1999 issue of Science magazine, authored by Ola Johannessen, Elena Shalena, and Martin Miles, reported Arctic sea ice had declined by 14 percent from 1978 through 1998. In a related story, columnist Richard Kerr pondered “Will the Arctic Ocean lose all its ice?” The mainstream press ran with the story, giving dire warnings that global warming was upon us.
However, CO2 Science Magazine later noted that in the Johannessen study, “essentially all of the drop . . . occurs rather abruptly over a single period of not more than three years (87/88-90/91) and possibly only one year (89/90-90/91). Furthermore, it could be argued from their data that from 1990/91 onward, sea ice area in the Arctic may have actually increased.”
More recent studies of the polar ice caps verify CO2 Science Magazine’s skepticism, and show the polar ice caps are holding their own and actually growing slightly.
Antarctic sea ice edge expanding
A study published in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate (Yuan, X. and Martinson, D.G., “Antarctic sea ice extent variability and its global connectivity,” Volume 13: 1697-1717 (2000)) demonstrated the Antarctic polar ice cap has been expanding. According to the study, 18 years of satellite data indicate the mean Antarctic sea ice edge has expanded by 0.011 degrees of latitude toward the equator each year.
A later study, also published in Journal of Climate (Watkins, A.B. and Simmonds, I., “Current trends in Antarctic sea ice: The 1990s impact on a short climatology,” Volume 13: 4441-4451 (2000)) reached a similar conclusion. The study reported significant increases in Antarctic sea ice between 1987 and 1996. The study further indicated the 1990s exhibited increases in the length of the sea-ice season.
Arctic ice thickening, expanding
A study published in Geophysical Research Letters (Winsor, P., “Arctic sea ice thickness remained constant during the 1990s,” Volume 28: 1039-1041 (2001)) found the same to be true in the Arctic. The study concluded, “mean ice thickness has remained on a near-constant level around the North Pole from 1986-1997.” Moreover, the study noted data from six different submarine cruises under the Arctic sea ice showed little variability and a “slight increasing trend” in the 1990s.
Just off the Arctic polar ice cap, ice coverage in Greenland was also shown to be steady and likely increasing. A study in Journal of Geophysical Research (Comiso, J.C., Wadhams, P., Pedersen, L.T. and Gersten, R.A., Volume 106: 9093-9116 (2001)) concluded that, annual variances notwithstanding, the Odden ice tongue in Greenland exhibited no statistically significant change from 1979 to 1998. Moreover, proxy reconstruction of the ice tongue utilizing air temperature data indicated the ice covers a greater area today than it did several decades ago.
Viewed as a whole, the new ice cap studies indicate no global warming has occurred in recent decades, at least not in high latitudes. These findings also offer an important insight into one of the more significant controversies surrounding global warming theory.
Surface vs. satellite readings
Surface temperature readings taken by humans indicate the Earth has warmed by approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 100 years. This warming is certainly not much, but it is often cited as evidence that global warming is occurring, even if it is merely in its initial stages.
However, precise satellite readings of the lower atmosphere (a region that is supposed to immediately reflect any global warming) have shown no warming since readings were begun more than 20 years ago.
“We have seen no sign of man-induced global warming at all. The computer models used in U.N. studies say the first area to heat under the ‘greenhouse gas effect’ should be the lower atmosphere, known as the troposphere. Highly accurate, carefully checked satellite data have shown absolutely no warming,” explained Tom Randall of the National Center for Public Policy Research.
Global warming skeptics have pointed out that most of the surface temperature readings indicating a warming have been taken in underdeveloped nations, where reliability and quality-control are questionable. In developed nations such as the United States, by contrast, the readings tend to show no warming. Moreover, skeptics note, surface temperature readings are influenced by artificial warming associated with growing urbanization, which creates artificial heat islands around temperature reading stations.
“While the greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have grown in the last 50 years, the correlation with a warming of the world’s climate is weak and far from being generally accepted by the scientific community,” James L. Johnston, a member of The Heartland Institute’s Board of Directors, observed in the August 4 Chicago Tribune.
Global warming proponents, on the other hand, now counter that warming, despite prior consensus to the contrary, might occur in the lower atmosphere only after a general warming of the Earth’s surface.
Models shown to be inaccurate . . . again
The recent polar ice studies, which measured surface rather than atmospheric temperature trends (and which were far removed from the effects of urban heat islands and questionable third-world temperature readings), lend weight to the argument that satellite readings, not surface monitoring stations, are correct.
“In considering all of the above results, it is likely that the global extent of sea ice is on the rise. Such observational evidence flies in the face of model predictions of global warming that say climate will change first and to the greatest extent in the Earth’s polar regions,” concludes CO2 Science Magazine.
CO2 Science suggests that self-regulating mechanisms, such as clouds, enable the Earth to keep a relatively steady climate despite the changes in CO2 concentration that have been a regular part of Earth’s history.
Viewing the new data in conjunction with other studies that properly filter out the imperfections of human-collected temperature readings, CO2 Science concludes, “There has been no global warming for the past 75 years.”
Old science Michael! The satellite records of temperatures that the 2001 article notes were in error for two reasons: they were including some signal from the stratosphere (which has to cool if the lower atmosphere warms), and they did not take into account a slowing down of the satellites due to friction. The corrected records (shown in the link below) do show warming. Also, the urban heat island problem is true, but it does not explain why the remote oceans and ocean water thousands of meters deep also show the same warming record as urban areas.
The link also shows that the northern sea ice was at its lowest extent on record in 2007.
Climatologists agree with you that the Antarctic ice cap will increase in size over time as precipitation increases. The retreat in the Antarctic Ice Shelves (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/retreating-glacier-fronts-on-the-antarctic-peninsula-over-the-past-half-century/) represents only a small fraction of all of the ice held in the ice cap itself.
The Greenland Ice Cap is where much water will come from to raise the oceans over the next few thousands years, just as it has in past warm times. At present it is simply becoming more dynamic (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/greenland-ice-and-other-glaciers/), but as it warms further it will start to melt more than it is projected to melt more than it grows. Continental glaciers (including the Gangotri Glacier that feeds the Ganges River) are in rapid retreat worldwide.
Clouds (vapor!) are the problem in making accurate predictions of further warming as high clouds enhance warming while low clouds cause cooling.
All of the geologists I know believe in global warming! But, then, they are academics.
Of course climate is self-regulating — within bounds. The processes of that regulation – from the formation of clouds to the circulation of oceans to the weathering of rocks – are beautiful but typically slow. The question is how far we want to deviate from what we have build our infrastructure to support.
Thanks Chris,
I couldn’t have refuted it better myself.
The NCDC site is a good one to bookmark.Steve
I hope more debate(inside the scientific community) and less legislation takes over the global warming seen. I hope out of this people see that there are more questions then answers(I feel good science is like this). Science I see has been better suited to dis-prove some hypothesis then prove one. I believe that was the ideal as well, I know scientist that pride them selves of that fact that the farthest science goes is a theory. Science I feel has been a tool wielded by new agers, poloticians, big buisness, I mean you name it. Its mainly because the public looks outward for guidance from this “source of truth”. Allot of things that have little integrity can and are already in the works to be done in the name of science/global warming.Is it time to make people us differnt light bulbs or is it time to explore a new geo-political power structure, and stretch our imagenations about what can be.
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/873aae7bf86c0110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.htmlhttp://www.aero2012.com/en/index.html
Dr. Chris Landsea who in his own words, resigned from the IPCC because:
I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.
So in the spirit of questioning and debate.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070705191403.gahmdtoi&show_article=1
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21920043-27197,00.html
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388
Just to be clear, the hypothesis my brother Peter (Geologist) does not accept is that global warming is caused MAINLY by human activity and C02 production, rather than warming caused by natural cycle.
And of course, there are the predictions that the current cycle of global warming will produce a lot more moisture in the admosphere that will ultimately turn into snowfall near the poles and possibly precipitate a new ice age…..
again, I trust the Earth’s yin-yang cycles ability to self-correct. But I agree with Voice that humans don’t necessarily have a secure place within those longer natural cycles, and human population could be affected by a large die-off due to failure of agriculture. But that may also be a necessary part of yin-yang flow…..?
I am personally far more concerned about humans tinkering with the natural cycles using nuclear technology/weapons, and creating radiative pollution that will last for very long time spans and be far more difficult for humans to recover from.
Michael
>>Just to be clear, the hypothesis my brother Peter (Geologist)
>>does not accept is that global warming is caused MAINLY by
>>human activity and C02 production, rather than warming caused
>>by natural cycle.Thanks for the clarification. This is a more reasonable position.
Of course, it highlights the need for further scientific research
to determine the *extent* to which any global warming is caused through
human activity.>>again, I trust the Earth’s yin-yang cycles ability to self-correct.
>>But I agree with Voice that humans don’t necessarily have a secure
>>place within those longer natural cycles, and human population could
>>be affected by a large die-off due to failure of agriculture. But
>>that may also be a necessary part of yin-yang flow…..?Yes, and this is the fear.
If the planet self-corrects too quickly or the longer natural
cycle is artificially accelerated either through pollution
–or more drastically as in your nuclear weapon example–
then where does that leave us?Of course, maybe a larger question should be asked:
Supposing that in the future, due to either a natural
cycle or human activity or some confluence of the two, the
planet becomes inhabitable *for humans*. Do you think that
on the consciousness level that means that we will have
“played out” our need for physicality, or that we will
incarnate on some “other Earth” elsewhere in the universe?Best,
StevenHi Julian,
With reference to “making people use different light bulbs”,
this is the one environmental issue that really makes me
uneasy, and the one issue where I would break rank with
the environmentalists.There is a movement by some to force everyone to change
the type of light bulb they use from the standard
“incandescent” to CFL’s (compact fluorescent lamps).The proponents of the switch argue that these produce
less greenhouse gases and create substantial energy savings.My big problem with it, is the fact that they are
fluorescent bulbs.Incandescent bulbs emit a full continuous spectrum of light,
often due to the heating of a Tungsten filament.Fluorescent bulbs, by contrast, only emit a few discrete
frequencies of light–obtained by exciting atoms that
when they deexcite they release light of a specific frequency.Since the light emitted from the sun is a continuous spectrum,
the light emitted from fluorescent bulbs is far more
unnatural than the light emitted from incandescent bulbs.
I would wager that being in light emitted from incandescent
bulbs is healthier for the human body than being in
light emitted from fluorescent light bulbs. At least for me,
empirically this is true. I tend to feel lethargic when
under fluorescent lighting for a length of time. Of course,
the natural sun is best of all, but if I have to use
artificial light–which is important to our way of life–I
personally want the light that I’m exposed to, to be
as close an approximation to that of sunlight that I can get.Proponents of the CFL’s argue that the new CFL’s have
been designed so that the appearance of the emitted light
looks more “soft white” like an incandescent bulb, rather
than the “sickly glow” that we associate with fluorescent
lighting.The problem is, is that no matter what they do to affect the
appearance, the science is still the same. CFL’s only
emit a discrete spectrum of a few individual frequencies–not
the whole spectrum of light. Hence while our eyes might not
notice the difference anymore, I’m betting our energy body does.Steven
I totally agree with you Steven, I refuse to use them because the light from it makes me ‘unhappy’. Despite my fathers good advice that I would safe money using them and that they improved the quality of it, my energy body is very clear and wants light that makes me feel good. Candles during winter time is something I use a lot too.
Hi Wendy,
I’m a big candle fan as well. I have probably have 20 jar candles in my
apartment. Meditating or doing qigong by candlelight is quite powerful.As to refusing to use CFLs, we may be screwed.
The following is taken from Wikipedia:Government efforts to encourage adoption of CFLs
Australia
On 20 February 2007, the Federal Government announced that by 2010, incandescent light bulbs would be banned in Australia, making it the first country in the world to announce such a ban.[68][69] It is estimated that greenhouse gas emissions will be cut by 800,000 tonnes (Australia’s current emission total is 564.7 million tonnes), a saving of approximate 0.14%. The Government has not announced any concurrent recycling program for old incandescent lamps.[70] The South Australian government has published an energy saving calculator in order to help people calculate their individual benefits.
Belgium
The Environment Minister Bruno Tobback is intent on banning incandescent light bulbs, and thinks the ban on incandescent light bulbs should be included in the list of measures under the Kyoto Protocol.[71][72] Former energy Minister Kris Peeters supports this position as well.[73]
Canada
On 2007-04-18, the Ontario government’s Minister of Energy Dwight Duncan announced that it was planning to ban the sale of inefficient lighting in 2012 to cut the local energy consumption.[74][75] The Ontario Power Authority has a voluntary program providing immediate cash rebates via coupons for the purchase of CFLs. The campaign is driven by posters, ads and their web site Every Kilowatt Counts (this program ended on Nov 30, 2007).
Following the announcement, the province of Nova Scotia has also pondered a similar ban.[76] However, Energy Minister Bill Dooks said he expects it would be 4 or 5 years before a ban is in place.
The territory of Nunavut is planning to ban incandescent lamps in May 2007.[77]
Hydro-Quebec offers mail in rebates for many energy star appliances including the fluorescent lamp. They have a vigorous advertising campaign that includes radio, television and bus shelter billboard advertisements. They are currently offering up to $25 in mail in rebates for their customers who buy the bulbs.[78]
A week later, on 2007-04-25, the federal government’s Environment Minister John Baird announced plans to ban the sale of incandescent lamps by 2012 all over Canada. According to the minister, Canada will save 3-4 billion CAD over the lifetime of the new bulbs.[79][80]
European Union
The European Union has proposed a ban on incandescent light bulbs, planned to come into effect in the near future, but this will not affect existing incandescent bulbs, only the production of new bulbs.[81] However, the proposal has yet to be approved by all member states or the European Parliament.
Finland
On the 26 September 2007, Swedish People’s Party MP Christina Gestrin, has posted a bill through the Eduskunta for banning incandescent light bulbs in Finland by 2011. It is estimated that the ban would save Finland around to 200,000 tonnes on carbon dioxide emissions.[82]
Germany
Germany’s Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel has urged the European Commission to ban inefficient light bulbs in the EU in the fight against global warming. The EU could reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 25 million tonnes a year if energy saving light bulbs such as CFLs were used in both the domestic and services sectors. .[83]
Ireland
On 6 December 2007, Ireland’s Environment minister John Gormley, delivered his Carbon Budget in Dáil Éireann. Minister Gormley announced that the country would stop using incandescent bulbs by January 2009, making it the first country to implement such a ban. These changes will result in savings of 700,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions from residential lighting and will result in Irish consumers saving over 185 million a year in electricity costs.[84] However the proposal has yet to undergo public consultation and receive EU approval under market rules.
Netherlands
The Netherlands is moving ahead with plans to ban incandescent light bulbs as well. The Environment minister Jacqueline Cramer wants a ban on incandescent light bulbs by 2011.[85]
New Zealand
In response to the Australian ban, New Zealand is considering similar measures. Climate Change Minister David Parker said, “The Australians are talking about looking at banning ordinary light bulbs in 3 years’ time. I think by the time that is implemented in Australia – if it is – we will be doing something very similar.”[86]
India
In India, Fluorescent lamps have been the de-facto standard for urban home illumination for decades. However, many lower middle class homes do not have the electrical wiring that is compatible with FL devices. Since low income households generally cannot afford to rewire their homes, they were compelled to use inefficient tungsten filament (incandescent) bulbs. In recent years, there has been a drive to popularize and implement CFLs in the country. CFLs are compatible with the incandescent bulb sockets and so can be retrofitted into homes with such sockets.Studies have been undertaken by the independent academics, as well as the Indian Administrative Service and the Indian Institute of Technology that recommend an aggressive implementation of the prescription for Education, Policy support, Standards, Demonstrations and Industry involvement for popularising CFLs.[87][88]
Pakistan
During Pakistan’s 2007 summer season (energy demand is at its peak in summer here), the government of Pakistan repeatedly asked the public to use fluorescent lamps (commonly known as energy savers in Pakistan). There were talks of making fluorescent lamps available on subsidised rates.[89]
United Kingdom
In the UK, Dr Matt Prescott of Banthebulb.org first proposed a ban in February 2005 and has since lobbied Parliament to tax, phase out and ban domestic incandescent lamps, a measure that has generated controversy. Recently, the light bulb manufacturer Philips has also set up a web site called aSimpleSwitch.com in support of a ban of high energy incandescent light bulb, but the continued use of high efficiency incandescents and halogens; other commentators oppose any proposed ban.[90] The Government itself focuses its efforts to improve household energy efficiency through its establishment and funding of the Energy Saving Trust.
The Co-op have also stopped selling incandescent lamps in 50 pilot stores, with a view to withdrawing them completely in the future. They have also reduced the prices of their CFLs to make them more attractive in the short term.[91]
On the 27 September 2007, the government announced plans to phase out the sale of incandescent light bulbs by 2011. Retailers will not replace 150 watt bulbs from January 2008, 100 watt bulbs from January 2009, 40 watt bulbs in 2010, and all remaining high power bulbs by 2011. These plans are voluntary, however they have wide support from retailers such as Currys, Habitat, Woolworths, Co-op, Asda, Morrisons, Sainsbury’s and Tesco. This initiative has been criticised by environmental groups such as Greenpeace, and other political parties, who think mandatory measures should be introduced.
Current building regulations also require some of the light fittings in new houses to be specially designed to only take CFLs. These fittings have a 2 or 4-pin socket, instead of the usual bayonet or screw fitting.
United States of America
In January 2007, California State Assembly member Lloyd E. Levine (D-Van Nuys) announced that he would introduce the ‘How Many Legislators does it take to Change a Light Bulb Act’ (a reference to light bulb joke), which would ban the sale of incandescent light bulbs in California starting in 2012.[92] That bill is now dead, though a competing bill by California State Assembly member Jared Huffman (D-Santa Rosa) was signed by Governor Schwarzeneger on 12 October.[93]
A few days later, Connecticut state Representative Mary M. Mushinsky (D-Wallingford) proposed a similar ban for the state of Connecticut.[94][95]
On 8 February 2007, New Jersey Assemblyman Larry Chatzidakis introduced a bill that calls for the state to switch to fluorescent lighting in government buildings over the next three years. “The light bulb was invented a long time ago and a lot of things have changed since then,” said Chatzidakis. “I obviously respect the memory of Thomas Edison, but what we’re looking at here is using less energy.”[96]
On 1 October 2007, West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin named 1 October ‘Change a Light, Change the World Day’, while giving a speech at West Virginia University. The university on the same day launched a massive program called WECAN, or West Virginia University Conservation Awareness Now. On launch day, there was a light bulb exchange in conjunction with Osram Sylvania at the university student union giving a compact fluorescent bulb for each regular incandescent bulb turned in.[97]
On 19 December 2007, United States President George W. Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Among other provisions, that law sets efficiency standards for electric lights that will see the incandescent light bulb phased off the US market beginning in 2012.[98]
I agree how about CFL bulbs – their frequency does not agree with me. Also, I find that their lifespan is not much better than incandescents. And, they have the problem of containing mercury that is emitted when they are landfilled or incinerated. One study suggests that the amount of mercury they will release is less than that from burning coal to power incandescent bulbs, but those results depend on how long the bulb lasts for.
But, candles can also have problems. Many candles have wicks that contain lead or mercury, and the burning of parafin candles results in many particulates that have tuolene, benzene and other nasties on them. Soy and beeswax candles are typically healthy, I believe, but if you haven’t already done so you might want to do some research on this.
I’ve attached a link to the National Candle Association,
and their opinion on the safety/health issues with candles.http://www.candles.org/about_faq.html
For the most part, they say candles are safe.
They argue that lead wicks have been banned in the US since 2003,
and that a properly burning candle should not put out much
in the way of particulates.Of course, there are others that issue warnings as you’ve
suggested:http://www.life.ca/nl/67/candles.html
http://www.ehso.com/ehshome/candles2.htm
It’s hard to know exactly what the real story is.
I can say that when in the presence of burning candles
my energy body feels energized, they have a positive effect on
me emotionally, and I feel better in general–so I’ll continue
to use them.Thanks for the heads up though; I may look into getting soy candles
at some point.Best,
StevenThis is the best evidence i found yet to NOT WORRY about global warming, and the scam behind the IPCC report. Not to say global warming isn’t occurring, but that it’s not anthropogenic, it’s not out of the normal range of fluctuation, and as an apocalyptic tale complete bunk.
I expect only those truly interested in the topic will read the article at this link (it’s 21 pages). I also expect that those of you who NEED an apocalypse will ignore it anyway.
Apocalypses never come true. We’ve been waiting thousands of years for several of them and they just don’t pan out…….
http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf
yeah I know, thanks for the info any way. Important to note what Voice said about what the bulbs break down into. Same with Michael pointing out the nuclear waste. These I can not put a coat on, or rub some sun lotion on for.:)
Its part of a long line of legislation you will see.The ratio of outer guidance to inner guidance is way off to be health and to promote adaptability.
War on drugs,War on terror,War on global warming,War on ?(some say ufos):)
Allot of nasty legislation, with no integrity got pushed throw, with more to come. All these are a war on us, we lose our family members and our freedoms and our money. We may be slow but I think we are getting the picture and the cycle is begening to be seen.If we trash this particular frequency of earth I belivve it will be stored in the Earth’s memory bank of its multi-dimensional energy body. It will lie there fallow until it regenerates. I doubt humanity is moving to another planet. Just as we have self-correcting forces that maintain equilibrium in the physical plane, we have similar balance of forces working multi-dimensionally to maintain equilibrium – and to allow for dynamic change.
So I think human life and culture will continue on Earth, at a slightly different (higher frequency) density. This is the much talked about shift from 3-D to 4-D. The shift is really illusory in the sense that all the dimensions always exist, and there is always flow between them. “Shift” just means here that a larger percentage of humans will become aware simultaneously of the continuous shift.
m
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.