No CO2 Rise In 150 Years *added link*

[B20Paul]

"Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data."

In Wolfgang Knorr's paper, he is 'reanalyzing' other people data. Why does he not just go to the ice core samples & analyze them first hand like a proper scientist?

[David Redszus]

Just returned from a short vacation in a Central American country. It has a very wet rainy season and a very dry, dry season. During the wet season, vegatation grows like weeds on steroids, overcrowding the shoulders of roads and would choke off some smaller roads completely if not controlled.

During the dry season, the jungle growth dries crisp and hard and can be cut. It is then thrown in stacks and burned for disposal. What looks like a cloud in a rain forest turns out to be smoke from controlled burn vegatation. They do it every year and have done so since roads were built (about 150 years). It is the only way to keep the roads passable.

Now here is my question. Do you think this government is going to stop burning jungle weeds in order to keep roads open just because someone says CO2 is a greenhouse gas is bad for the enviornment? Not a chance in hell.

In many parts of the world, crop stalks are burned in the fields so that the nutrients can be put back into the ground. If they did not do this, it would require massive amounts of fertilizer since the soil quality is poor.

The answer is simple. They will burn baby, burn. And they are right.

[MadBill]

One doesn't have to leave the US to see this David. A number of years back, I was on (ironically) an emissions development road trip with GM in Arizona, fine-tuning the driveability/emissions trade-off for several future year products. An enormous thunderhead cloud appeared many hours away on the horizon. As we got closer, it pretty well blotted out the sky and the air turned gray...and smokey! Yup, a deliberate burn of umpteen square miles of vegetation, to fertilize the next crop. I have to believe the resulting air pollution would exceed the output of Arizona's entire vehicle fleet for a year..

Often "renewable, green" energy sources (such as sugar cane, which is burned off at regular intervals) have huge unmentioned carbon footprints hidden in the 'earth to wheels' journey...

[David Redszus]

Often "renewable, green" energy sources (such as sugar cane, which is burned off at regular intervals) have huge unmentioned carbon footprints hidden in the 'earth to wheels' journey...

Ah, yes, ethanol from sugar cane. When the total carbon footprint is considered, ethanol is not what what we have been led to believe it is.

Properly, ethanol belongs in a glass with ice.

[David Redszus]

1. Global Warming Scientist Admits Doubts

Proponents of man-made global warming have suffered a serious blow as leading climate change scientist Phil Jones now acknowledges that the earth may have been warmer in medieval times than now.

Jones also conceded in an interview with the BBC that during the past 15 years there has been no “statistically significant” warming.

“The admissions will be seized on by skeptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely made-made,” Britain‘s Daily Mail observed.

Jones recently stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in Britain after leaked e-mails indicated that scientists there were manipulating data to strengthen the argument for man-made global warming.

The data have been used to support efforts by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to urge governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions and to produce the “hockey stick graph” that shows temperatures relatively stable for centuries before rising sharply in recent decades.

Critics of global warming crusaders believe there is evidence that the world was warmer than today between about 800 and 1300 A.D., during the so-called Medieval Warm Period (MWP), due to evidence of high temperatures in northern countries.

“There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not,” Jones said in the interview.

“The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic, and Europe and parts of Asia.

“For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

“Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th century warmth would not be unprecedented.”

Marc Sheppard, environment editor of American Thinker, declares: “As the entire anthropogenic global warming theory is predicated on correlation with rising CO2 levels, this first-such confession from an IPCC senior scientist is nothing short of earth-shattering.”

He also writes: “Indeed, we know that, during the MWP, ice-free seas allowed the Vikings to settle a then comfortably warm Greenland, where colonies flourished for many centuries. Modern archaeologists digging through [Greenland’s] permafrost have uncovered bones and artifacts attesting to the villages established there.”

Despite his concession that there has been no “statistically significant” warming over the past 15 years, Jones still maintains that he is “100 percent confident” the climate has warmed and said “there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.”

[F1Fever]

Often "renewable, green" energy sources (such as sugar cane, which is burned off at regular intervals) have huge unmentioned carbon footprints hidden in the 'earth to wheels' journey...

Ah, yes, ethanol from sugar cane. When the total carbon footprint is considered, ethanol is not what what we have been led to believe it is.

Properly, ethanol belongs in a glass with ice.

When a plant grows it extracts CO2 from the air and water from the air/soil to produce sugars and O2.
when harvested the high starch/sugar parts of the plant are primarily used (be it corn or cane or apples).

what is left behind, when burnt, releases much less CO2 back into the atmosphere then it removed when growing.

[Cogburn]

The carbon black from burning is much worse for "global warming" than CO2. Much of the carbon black in the atmosphere is now produced in Asia and China.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... tml?page=2

Ethanol production in the USA being corn based does produce large amounts of nitrous oxide due to the breakdown of nitrogen fertilizers which also is much worse for "global warming" than CO2.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 134552.htm

[MadBill]

We shouldn't overlook the fact that one of the most potent greenhouse gases is... WATER VAPOR!

[David Redszus]

We shouldn't overlook the fact that one of the most potent greenhouse gases is... WATER VAPOR!

Well there you go. A major component of exhaust gas is WATER VAPOR. So if we could eliminate all internal combustion engine exhaust gas we would reduce water vapor, combat global warming and save the planet. See Al Gore was right.

[enigma57]

Well, so much for 'global warming'. We are located just West of Spring, Texas. Our 4th snowfall of the year so far is beginning here. Not so long ago, snowfall in these parts was a once in 12 to 15 year oddity. This year, we have had our coldest winter in memory.

My youngest son and his family live up in College Station. He E-mailed me and said its been snowing there pretty steady since 1 PM. I told him its all because of the '92 Camaro convertible he bought towards the end of summer.

After I get the dogs in, I'm gonna fire up the oven and bake a couple of pizzas for dinner. That ought to warm up the house a bit.

Best regards to all,

Harry

[1989TransAm]

Now, 150 years of climate data is to be re-examined and it will take 3 years to do it. So like I said in previous threads how do you know what is true and not true anymore regarding climate data. Apparently this group thinks the same thing and are going to start over. Here is the link.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... andal.html

[David Redszus]

One of the disturbing trends is that certain elements of Corporate America simply don't understand that man-made global warming is a myth. They direct their marketing efforts toward almost anything that has a "Green" tinge to it since they seem to think that the American people are passionate about climate change. They are going to make a buck out of this somehow or another; the truth be damned.

The same holds true for documentary programs and even topics taught in schools. Thou shalt not challenge CLIMATE CHANGE. When did political correctness, extended to climate politics, replace real science?


When the Emperor has no clothes, lower you eyes.

[B20Paul]

One doesn't have to leave the US to see this David. A number of years back, I was on (ironically) an emissions development road trip with GM in Arizona, fine-tuning the driveability/emissions trade-off for several future year products. An enormous thunderhead cloud appeared many hours away on the horizon. As we got closer, it pretty well blotted out the sky and the air turned gray...and smokey! Yup, a deliberate burn of umpteen square miles of vegetation, to fertilize the next crop. I have to believe the resulting air pollution would exceed the output of Arizona's entire vehicle fleet for a year..

Often "renewable, green" energy sources (such as sugar cane, which is burned off at regular intervals) have huge unmentioned carbon footprints hidden in the 'earth to wheels' journey...

You are describing some very outdated farming techniques, we stopped burning off 20+ years ago & the soil has improved considerably since. Burning off was done simply because cane harvesters that could deal with all the green rubbish had not been invented before the 1980's. Before haversters, burning off was used to kill the rodents, brown snakes & taipans before manually harvesting.

I'm guessing you guys have never heard of compost either? It's natures own fertiliser only you don't have to pay a petrochemical company for it.

[B20Paul]

We shouldn't overlook the fact that one of the most potent greenhouse gases is... WATER VAPOR!

What causes the water vapour to get in to the atmosphere?

[David Redszus]

The Sun.