Global warming and the end

[Biblewriter]

Hi Biblewriter, it's much worse than that! As you of course know! ANY evidence that convinces anyone anywhere of global warming is faked. I've just got to keep away from those distorted websites that might change my poor guillible mind! I've got to read balanced websites like you do, websites by survivalist anti-Semitic types gearing up for the guv-ern-maynt to come an git me!

But surely I am allowed to read websites that quote summaries of material written by the National Academies of science from around the world? I don't have to limit myself to the 'moon is made of cheese' conspiracy types quoting 'petitions' put together by madmen?

Academies of Science (general science)

A total of 34 national science academies have made formal declarations since 2001 confirming anthropogenic global warming and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. This includes 33 who have signed joint science academies' statements and one individual declaration made by the Polish Academy of Sciences made in 2007.
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I read websites produced by both sides, something you very obviously do not do.

And I have the scientific background to sort the meat from the fluff, something you obviously cannot do.

 

[eclipsenow]

I read websites produced by both sides, something you very obviously do not do.

And I have the scientific background to sort the meat from the fluff, something you obviously cannot do.

Yea, he doth read both sideth, and that ith why he dicerneth the chaff in the survivalitht madneth.

Remember all, Biblewriter said the Oregon Petition was a CONSPIRACY to defraud the hallowed heights of the Petition Project!

"The wording of the petition may be that same. But the methodology is 100% different. If the makers of the Oregon Petition used the same wording, they did this in a fraudulent attempt to discredit the Petition Project. But as fraud is noting new to these people, t does not surprise me."

Did Biblewriter really read both sides of the 'debate' when it came to the Petition Project, or was he deceived by the steady stream of Denialist 'facts' he reads and uncritically swallows? Was Biblewriter duped? YOU DECIDE!
Kevin Grandia: The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda

 

[eclipsenow]

And... it's not just climate change.

The fifth edition of the Global Environmental Outlook (GEO-5) – a global environmental report card by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) – reads like the results for a sedentary, middle-aged, overweight, binge drinking, heavy smoker. Low points of the report include:

• evidence of climate change, including a 230% increase in flood disasters and 38% in drought disasters between the 1980s and 2000
• threat of extinction of one-fifth of all vertebrates
• collapse of some marine ecosystems due to pollution and overfishing, and the creation of 169 “coastal dead zones”.

Collectively, the prognosis of the GEO-5 report is dire, warning “if humanity does not urgently change its ways, several critical thresholds may be exceeded, beyond which abrupt and generally irreversible changes to the life-support functions of the planet could occur”.

UN produces another boring global environmental warning; world continues not caring

 

[Biblewriter]

And... it's not just climate change.



UN produces another boring global environmental warning; world continues not caring

All this absolutely cannot happen because that would make a fulfillment of Bible prophecy impossible.
You choose to believe the word of men, I choose to believe the Word of God.

 

[eclipsenow]

All this absolutely cannot happen because that would make a fulfillment of Bible prophecy impossible.
You choose to believe the word of men, I choose to believe the Word of God.

I choose to believe that Revelation was written to ALL generations of Christians as John says in Chapter 1, not some last last lucky last generation. I choose to believe that Revelation is written about and to all generations, encouraging them and challenging them and rebuking them, because it is ABOUT them. The metaphors here are not that different to the metaphors in the parables of Jesus. I resist the narcissistic temptation to make that book all about ME and MY generation, and see it for what it is: the gospel written to all.

In the meantime, the stuff in that article is just good old fashioned 'advanced common sense.' That's what science is, after all.

 

[eclipsenow]

Now, to everyone else...

After trying to alert the world to this problem for the last 25 years, Bill McKibben (a Christian) is angry. Bill McKibben is encouraging universities to divest their shares in fossil fuel companies. This is how the moral outrage against South Africa’s apartheid really went viral. This is how we’ll finally get the Fossil Fuel companies to pay attention to our demand that they become Clean Energy Companies, by hitting them in their pocketbooks! But more than that, universities are where the next great cultural and moral memes grow and expand.

And the meme is this: we're not just doing science talks any more. We're not just lobbying government any more. We're going to protest against our Universities investing in dirty, climate changing (and civilisation destroying) fossil fuels. We're going to hit their pocketbooks and engage in moral, measured acts of civil disobedience so powerful that the world will be forced to sit up and take notice!

45 minutes: the science, the summary statistics, the failed politics of greed, and our new strategy and game plan to take on big oil and king coal.

Do the Math - The Movie - YouTube

 

[eclipsenow]

And here is a brilliant explanation of some counter-intuitive physics. The ABC’s flagship science show, Catalyst, has a brilliant piece describing how Global Warming can lead to both increasing floods and droughts, and weird late snow storms across the top of Europe and America while the rest of those continents bake!

Catalyst: Extreme Weather - ABC TV Science

 

[berachah]

Latest news is India and China are building/planning 400 coal fired power stations. Their coal is coming from South Africa and Australia, and the prevailing winds will no doubt dump the pollution back on those countries.

The fact of the matter is there is a massive conspiracy under way to empoverish western nations so that the citizens will be encouraged to give up their freedoms and rights and accept a future centralised world government (UN). And that is in line with end time prophecy.

As for man made impact on the environment it is insignificant.
- If it were such an issue the powers that be would immediately demand real action such as the immediate cessation of all deforestation rather than taxing farmers for farting cows and people for using coal powered energy. China and India would be compelled to cease such destructive energy policies. Huge taxes would be placed on coal exports and destructive air travel; compulsary and subsidized solar power would be put in place for every house, sports matches and events only played in the day to avoid lighting demands, street lights, traffic lights would all be solar powered, huge govt incentives would paid to private enterprise to invent alternatives to petrol/diesel engines, etc etc.

.....No, the plan is clearly designed to hamper certain societies.

Anyone with half an heart to study the matter knows there has been a massive flood of false and deceiptful "scientific' evidence involved, with secret modelling which is invariably proved wrong. Besides the fact that the earth is actually cooling at the moment. Meanwhile people such as Al Gore and the usual banksters of this world (who incidently, behind the scenes are funding the "research" and spreading of false information on the matter) are rubbing their hands with glee as trading on this essential building block of life becomes a reality.

And lest anyone gets too excited about the change in South Africa referred to... a nation that did not killl off all its indigenous people such as others that supposedly stand for equality, justice and non prejudice..... it is far worse a situation than it ever was under apartheid. (and that for the average black South African). Unless your name is Winnie Mandela (of "with these matches we will liberate this nation" fame) or Zuma, expect to contract a deadly disease, be murdered or unemployed during your miserable life. But hey, as long as you can vote (and who cares if the vote is not counted or manipulated) you should be a lot happier...and reverse apartheid is thriving in South Africa so that clearly was not such a heineous crime after all.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

A lot of people think that global warming is a scam, thought up by the Thatcher government for political reasons.. bash the coal miners, and adopt gas instead.. and it gives the government, of any ilk, an excuse to tax fuel, so that people cant afford to heat their homes, or drive a car. And they put the price of diesel up, so that it's more expensive than petrol, even though diesel cars are much more fuel efficient.. my opinion.. the whole lot of them are money grabbing hypocrites and liars.

 

[Biblewriter]

This graph was leaked from a proposed UN Climate Report intend for publication in 2014.


The colored areas show forecasts predicted by various "scientific" models.
The black vertical bars show temperature ranges actually observed.

 

[eclipsenow]

Latest news is India and China are building/planning 400 coal fired power stations. Their coal is coming from South Africa and Australia, and the prevailing winds will no doubt dump the pollution back on those countries.

The fact of the matter is there is a massive conspiracy under way to empoverish western nations so that the citizens will be encouraged to give up their freedoms and rights and accept a future centralised world government (UN). And that is in line with end time prophecy.

As for man made impact on the environment it is insignificant.
- If it were such an issue the powers that be would immediately demand real action such as the immediate cessation of all deforestation rather than taxing farmers for farting cows and people for using coal powered energy. China and India would be compelled to cease such destructive energy policies. Huge taxes would be placed on coal exports and destructive air travel; compulsary and subsidized solar power would be put in place for every house, sports matches and events only played in the day to avoid lighting demands, street lights, traffic lights would all be solar powered, huge govt incentives would paid to private enterprise to invent alternatives to petrol/diesel engines, etc etc.

.....No, the plan is clearly designed to hamper certain societies.

Anyone with half an heart to study the matter knows there has been a massive flood of false and deceiptful "scientific' evidence involved, with secret modelling which is invariably proved wrong. Besides the fact that the earth is actually cooling at the moment. Meanwhile people such as Al Gore and the usual banksters of this world (who incidently, behind the scenes are funding the "research" and spreading of false information on the matter) are rubbing their hands with glee as trading on this essential building block of life becomes a reality.

And lest anyone gets too excited about the change in South Africa referred to... a nation that did not killl off all its indigenous people such as others that supposedly stand for equality, justice and non prejudice..... it is far worse a situation than it ever was under apartheid. (and that for the average black South African). Unless your name is Winnie Mandela (of "with these matches we will liberate this nation" fame) or Zuma, expect to contract a deadly disease, be murdered or unemployed during your miserable life. But hey, as long as you can vote (and who cares if the vote is not counted or manipulated) you should be a lot happier...and reverse apartheid is thriving in South Africa so that clearly was not such a heineous crime after all.

Well, for someone who's got it all so figured out, what do you do about the fact that Co2's greenhouse gas potential was published by Joseph Fouier decades before Karl Marx published his Communist Manifesto?

What do you do about the fact that CO2's heat trapping properties are as easily tested in any physics lab as, say, the fact that water boils at 100degrees centigrade at sea-level?

 

[eclipsenow]

This graph was leaked from a proposed UN Climate Report intend for publication in 2014.
.....

Dude, why don't you tell us all what those 'coloured' areas actually model, hey? By many accounts, we are right on schedule with the models.

Also, isn't the trend clear from the ACTUAL TEMPERATURES? I thought you said more Co2 didn't equal more warming? Oh well.

Now, back to your attack on the models.... I see it as a sign of their intellectual honesty that they still include the FAR and SAR stuff... and you use it to attack them? Wow. That's... amazing.

1.5.1 Model Evolution and Model Hierarchies <>
Climate scenarios rely upon the use of numerical models. The continuous evolution of these models over recent decades has been enabled by a considerable increase in computational capacity, with supercomputer speeds increasing by roughly a factor of a million in the three decades from the 1970s to the present. This computational progress has permitted a corresponding increase in model complexity (by including more and more components and processes, as depicted in Figure 1.2), in the length of the simulations, and in spatial resolution, as shown in Figure 1.4. The models used to evaluate future climate changes have therefore evolved over time. Most of the pioneering work on CO2-induced climate change was based on atmospheric general circulation models coupled to simple &#8216;slab&#8217; ocean models (i.e., models omitting ocean dynamics), from the early work of Manabe and Wetherald (1975) to the review of Schlesinger and Mitchell (1987). At the same time the physical content of the models has become more comprehensive (see in Section 1.5.2 the example of clouds). Similarly, most of the results presented in the FAR were from atmospheric models, rather than from models of the coupled climate system, and were used to analyse changes in the equilibrium climate resulting from a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Current climate projections can investigate time-dependent scenarios of climate evolution and can make use of much more complex coupled ocean-atmosphere models, sometimes even including interactive chemical or biochemical components.

1.5.1 Model Evolution and Model Hierarchies - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science

 

[Biblewriter]

Then look at the actual data and tell us how much the planet has warmed in the last ten years. Hint. The number is zero.

 

[eclipsenow]

Then look at the actual data and tell us how much the planet has warmed in the last ten years. Hint. The number is zero.

1. So you concede that FAR, SAR, TAR etc are models that are gradually improving, and that FAR is not the state of the art model now anyway, according to the IPCC?

2. Anyone who says it has not warmed in the last 10 years or so is ignoring global temperatures before the last 10 years, and other short-term climate 'waves' like La Nina. It's like looking at the trough in the waves in the bathtub, and ignoring the fact that the tap has been left on! "Look, there's a low bit there!" and ignoring that the higher waves are now washing over the sides of the bath!

Basically I'm sure you're relying on 1998 to try and indicate no warming... in the hottest decade on instrumental records!

Here's the thing: 1998 is now the 3rd warmest year on record and IT was on the high point of an El Nino wave, while the 2 years that beat it were in La Nina 'lows'!

Of the top 3 climate monitoring units on the planet only Hadley says 1998 was the warmest, and the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) has pointed to a cooling bias with the Hadley data.
What has global warming done since 1998?

Two of the three most powerful temperature databases on the planet confirm 1998 as the THIRD warmest year on record, even when 1998 had one of the most frighteningly powerful El Nino's we've ever seen. Check it out —[bless and do not curse]NOAA, NASA, then Hadley's CRU.

The NCDC at NOAA says:
///For 2010, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record, at 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). 1998 is the third warmest year-to-date on record, at 0.60°C (1.08°F) above the 20th century average."
State of the Climate | Global Analysis - Annual 2010

NASA GISTEMP confirms the same thing and says:
"Global surface temperatures in 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest on record, according to an analysis released Wednesday by researchers at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.///
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110112/

And now Phil Jones at the CRU, but don't forget the ECMWF has had a go at this particular dataset.

///The time series shows the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1850 to 2010. According to the method of calculation used by CRU, the year 2010 was the equal third (see footnote) warmest on record (with 2003), exceeded by 1998 and 2005. The years 2003, 2005 and 2010 are only distinguishable in the third decimal place. The error estimate for individual years (two standard errors is about ±0.1°C, see Brohan et al., 2006) is at least ten times larger than the differences between these three years.

The period 2001-2010 (0.44°C above 1961-90 mean) was 0.20°C warmer than the 1991-2000 decade (0.24°C above 1961-90 mean). The warmest year of the entire series has been 1998, with a temperature of 0.55°C above the 1961-90 mean. After 1998, the next nine warmest years in the series are all in the decade 2001-2010. During this decade, only 2008 is not in the ten warmest years. Even though 2008 was the coldest year of the 21st century it was still the 12th warmest year of the whole record.///
Information Sheet 1 redirection

But rather than argue over hundredths of a degree, which is all that seems to separate the temperatures, have a look at the 15 year trend *all* 3 agencies report. Brilliant graphic here.
Climate monitoring - Met Office

Even Denialist's are admitting it. At the 2009 Heartland Institute conference (of global warming sceptics), well known climate denialist Dr Patrick J Michaels (author of the World Climate Report Denialist blog) warned against using the 1998 El Nino super-spike as some sort of 'proof' of a cooling trend. Take the advice of the words of a fellow Denialist.

"You've all seen articles saying that global warming stopped in 1998. Well, with all due respect that's being a little bit unfair to the data. This is 1998 here, and it was a HUGE El Nino year, and the sun was very active in 1998, and so what you're going to have you're going to have a fall … as the consequent La Nina … takes place."

"Make an argument that you can get killed on and you will kill us all… If you loose credibility on this issue you lose this issue!"
1998 Revisited - YouTube

He then goes on to explain that when the El Nino cycles return, it's going to get really hot again. Not only that, but Patrick Michaels explains that:

"SO! Global warming IS REAL, and the second warming of the 20th Century, people have something to do with it! Now get over it!"

So while Denialists selectively zoom in on a few data points to try and skew the story any way they want, overall, the trend is clear.
Climate Denial Crock of the Week - Party like it&#39;s 1998 - YouTube
The last decade was the hottest on record, and anyone who says otherwise is denying the best data on the planet and pushing an anti-science agenda of their own.

 

[Biblewriter]

The last decade was the hottest on record, and anyone who says otherwise is denying the best data on the planet and pushing an anti-science agenda of their own.

And I have already published proof that this data has been fraudulently manipulated.

You see, part of the problem here is that there are simply too many of us that personally remember the data that was previously published.

Historical data does not change. When an institution publishes historical data, and afterward publishes data that is allegedly that same historical data, but the data is significantly different from what they had previously published, they are caught in a gross lie.

The last decade clearly has not been as warm as the medieval warming period, even if it were true (which it is not) that it has been the warmest since records began t be published. Nor has it been nearly as warm as in the far past, as can be seen by geological records which clearly show tropical vegetation over the entire earth.

 

[eclipsenow]

And I have already published proof that this data has been fraudulently manipulated.

You see, part of the problem here is that there are simply too many of us that personally remember the data that was previously published.

You tell yourself whatever you like, as long as you have a warm cup of milk before an afternoon nap to help calm you down.

But until you can PROVE where your list of numbers came from, and that a similar story occured for the other 2 major databases on the planet, and there there was actually MALICIOUS INTENT to all this and it was not a valid correction, then you're just pushing smoke and mirrors my friend.

Historical data does not change.

It does when one adjusts a database to correct for urban heat island effect or other biases in particular instruments. There are all sorts of reasons individual instruments might be faulty and they have to delete a few years of instrument input into the broader database. This of course affects the overall average. I thought you would have known this?

 

[Biblewriter]

You tell yourself whatever you like, as long as you have a warm cup of milk before an afternoon nap to help calm you down.

But until you can PROVE where your list of numbers came from, and that a similar story occured for the other 2 major databases on the planet, and there there was actually MALICIOUS INTENT to all this and it was not a valid correction, then you're just pushing smoke and mirrors my friend.


It does when one adjusts a database to correct for urban heat island effect or other biases in particular instruments. There are all sorts of reasons individual instruments might be faulty and they have to delete a few years of instrument input into the broader database. This of course affects the overall average. I thought you would have known this?

I have given the source for the data. Of course, the ones who hanged their data also deleted the previous information.

Yes, I knew about the alleged "corrections." but the "corrections" you mentioned would have made the new data read cooler, instead of warmer, as they systematically made it.

The way they got the new data to show warming was to gradually eliminate hundreds of data collection points in high altitude, high latitude, and rural areas.These are the cooler areas. So of course, the "averages" are not warmer.

I have seen dishonesty in the "scientific" world for longer that you have been alive. So this does not surprise me. And I have seen gullible individuals that swallow their lies hook, line, and sinker many times in the past. So go on and believe what you like. But just remember that there are simply too many of us that see through all the distortions and disinformation.

 

[juleamager]

But just remember that there are simply too many of us that see through all the distortions and disinformation.

You mean ignore the evidence. Even if you say the Earth is not warming, which is a lie from the deepest pit of Hell, the use of fossil fuels still has very real repercussions. Fossil fuels, especially the mining of them, contributed to asbestos and mesothelioma. It has put smog in our cities, sent acid rain on monuments and European cathedrals, and is giving many people asthma.

Fossil fuel mining and production lead to oil spills, and the destruction of many natural environments, and countless animals species. The sea levels are rising, and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization World Heritage Sites such as Venice are in danger of being flooded entirely and abandoned. Nations such as the Netherlands, lying near the sea, are in danger of being submerged as well.

The thing is, whether you believe it or not, our environment is changing. If we continue to ignore it, my generation will suffer and the blood will be on this present generation's head.

 

[Biblewriter]

Some time ago I referred to an ancient map showing[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica] Antarctica ice free.

This was met by the predictable scoffing from the of the global warming fraud. At the time, My book referring to this map was stored where I could not get to it. But I was able to recover it a few days ago. After I had the name of the map, I was able to find copies of it, as well as two others showing the same information, from the internet.

These can be seen and inspected in detail at:[/FONT]

The [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Oronteus Finaeus map of 1532

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]http://www.timstouse.com/EarthHistory/Antarctic/oronteusfinaeus.htm

[/FONT]The Mercator Map of 1538
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]
Forbidden Archeology: The Mercator Map of 1538

The Hadji Ahmed Map of 1559

Hadji Ahmed Map - Unsolved Mysteries In The World

These three maps are the physical proof that there was a time after mankind learned to draw accurate maps what the earth was so warm that Antarctica was at least largely ice free. That is, that at a previous time after mankind had learned to draw accurate maps, the earth was far warmer than at any time in the recent past or at any time even in the next 100 years as predicted by even the most pessimistic Global warming alarmists.
[/FONT]

 

[eclipsenow]

I have given the source for the data. Of course, the ones who hanged their data also deleted the previous information.

The scientists can show data and evidence for how Co2 traps heat, the maths for by how much, isotopes that prove it is our Co2 (not nature's) that is changing the climate, and then show melting and retreating glaciers and an Arctic circle with a tiny fraction of the ice.

You offer me a string of numbers that you got from ... somewhere. Are you seriously suggesting that I just bin all the peer-reviewed, scientifically credible evidence that I can check out with my own eyes because some cranky old guy on the internet downloaded some numbers from some source on some website... and yet cannot prove where he got them? You cannot demonstrate this first 'conspiracy' (of your fevered imagination!) let alone prove a similar event for the other 2 largest databases on the planet, HADCRUT and NOAA. When are you going to give it a rest? Or are you just an internet troll I should have put on my ignore list months ago?