Miscellany

Various points from cyberspace:

At the poles, drilling there made it possible to gather evidence of a plant time before the formation of the Calotes. The fact of whether there is oil under Greenland, which is already in dispute between several neighboring states, is a clear sign that there always existed a rigorous climate of negative temperatures, as now. In rock strata far above sea level are fossils of marine species, which indicates that the sea has held other altitudes. All this tells us that the climate has changed over the Natural History of the Earth and will continue to change regardless of the will of man and rightly so.

1. A warming world is actually good for mankind, opening up lands for farming in Siberia, Greenland, Canada, and many other areas of the globe, opens shipping channels in the northwest passage, and promotes better plant growth. (But the world has actually been cooling for the past 10+ years.)

2. CO2 plays only a minor factor (if at all) in driving climate change (link to prior posts).

3. Data has been manipulated by the IPCC gang to exaggerate global warming, and what warming is or is not taking place (very hard to tell now given the "hopeless state" of the CRU databases)  is primarily related to uncontrollable, long-term, natural cycles in solar magnetic activity, not man-made CO2 or other greenhouse gases.

4. Sea levels have been gradually rising at the same pace for over 15,000 years since the last major ice age, not due to man-made influences.

You know that stuff you exhale in high concentrations: CO2? The EPA apparently thinks pollution results even with miniscule increases in the 0.038% trace levels of CO2 found in the atmosphere. Obviously, slightly elevated CO2 levels have never resulted in cataclysm before. So why does it say so now?

Its theory is that the planet’s ability to absorb CO2 is maxed out. Additional CO2, it says, will therefore result in skyrocketing CO2 levels. This theory, however, is completely unsupported by evidence. Dr. Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol just published as study in Geophysical Research Letters showing that the portion of the atmospheric CO2 absorbed by plant life, mostly in the oceans, has remained stable since 1850.

In fact, it is the failure of the CRU model to properly address the role of the oceans that convinced me long ago that it’s fundamentally missed the boat. Only about 10% of the Earth’s heat storage is atmospheric. About 90% of the Earth’s energy storage takes place in the waters of the oceans. Water, after all, stores far more energy than air.

Furthermore, ocean temperatures are far easier to measure accurately. Many land-based temperature stations have been compromised due to changes in local conditions, mostly increased urbanization. This is not the case with oceans. NASA has more than 3,000 robotic buoys that dive and surface continually all over the world collecting ocean temperature data at different depths. This information has been transmitted via satellite to NASA since 2003. Compiled, it shows clearly that ocean temperatures are falling.

If the oceans were bleeding heat into the atmosphere, we would see higher air temperatures. The Climategate e-mail leak shows, however, that even CRU knows that atmospheric temperatures have fallen since the late ‘90s. This means, I believe, that we are in an extended period of global cooling, not a temporary turnaround. University of Rochester physicists have published recently data showing the historic and central role ocean temperatures play in climate and climate change.

The fact that the U.N.’s climate gurus have destroyed data, hid inconvenient truths and subverted the peer-review process is not, by the way, proof that anthropogenic global warming could not possibly occur. Nor does it prove we are not in a natural period of cooling caused by solar cycles. The only thing it does prove is that models are junk and that the most powerful government-anointed climate scientists have no idea what’s going on — as the leaked e-mails stated over and over again.