DUmmie FUnnies 06-24-08 ("We have ONE year.. ONE election")

Remember all the propaganda we were fed about how Global Warming is a non-partisan issue? Well, it turns out it was all hogwash. No big surprise there. The Left is now enlisting Global Warming alarmism on a big scale to help get Barack Obama elected as you can see in this KOmmie THREAD titled, "Hansen on Global Warming: We have ONE year.. ONE election." Yes, me must elect Obama or it will be the END OF THE WORLD!!! It turns out that James Hansen has been making Global Warming alarmist WARNINGS for at least 20 years. In 1988 he predicted severe dought was coming to the midwest. Five years later, in 1993, the Midwest experienced extreme flooding. Also check out the current flooding in the Midwest to see just how accurate Hansen has been in his predictions. One might as well consult Jean Dixon in predicting climate change. However, the KOmmies turn to Hansen as some sort of prophet to help them elect their beloved Obama. So let us now watch the KOmmies play the Global Warming Alarmist card in Bolshevik Red while the commentary of your humble correspondent, noting that the weatherman is lucky if he can predict the weather correctly just 3 days in advance, is in the [barackets]:

"I think we have a very brief window of opportunity to deal with climate change ... no longer than a decade, at the most."

Since then, things have gotten much, much worse. The Arctic ice is melting faster than expected. CO2 emissions are accelerating. Global warming is accelerating.

Hansen no longer stands by his estimate that we have one decade to turn things around. He now thinks that was too optimistic.

[You will be joining the Heavens Gate cult aboard the Mother Ship. And now to the rest of the KOmmies...]

Most coverage has focussed on his statement that oil CEOs should be prosecuted. This is interesting, but I think misses the point of his testimony.

It's time to stop Climaticide and that means working for justice as well as having the right policies. Without justice there will be cynicism and cynicism plays into the hands of the denialists and the tactics of disinformation.

[LOL! "Climaticide." I definitely have to file that word away with "Freudenschade."]

The warming of the Arctic is beginning to look irreversible. There are positive feedbacks that are amplifying inputs. Sea ice melting is causing more warming and more warm Atlantic water flowing into the Arctic.

[Gee! Then how is it that we can still watch Ice Road Truckers who drive right over the frozen Arctic ocean?]

Republican ideology will block any meaningful. Climate related reform into the foreseeable future. We all might as well accept extinction because nothing will change in the USA in terms of politics. The only conceivable circumstance that might avoid extinction of humanity is if the oil economy suffers catastrophic and irreversible loss. Which, given Republican Rapturist ideology, is always possible via warmongering, most likely Iran. Even the complete melting of Greenland won't stop the greed and selfishness of Republicans.

[EVIL Republicans!!! It's all their fault! So much for that hype about Global Warming being a non-partisan issue.]

He seems to be mixing a bunch of stuff. One moment, it is "99% certain." The next he's saying there will be 2-meter sea level rise this century, which is certanly not in IPCC projections.

Considering that we will not take power for 7 more months - we have a little problem here.

[Which will pale in comparison to the HUGE mental problem you will have in 7 months if you do NOT take power.]

Hansen's superlative reputation makes his increasingly edgy statements deeply disturbing.

For a bunch of fear-based weenies, I don't understand why the deniers aren't more scared, really.

[I'm sooooo frightened about Hansen's incredibly accurate predictions about drought in the Midwest.]

When they try to argue that climate scientists are "bought off" by the environmental lobby. Like there's big, big money in environmentalism. These guys are geniuses.

[Al Gore seems to be making a pretty penny in selling Carbon Credit indulgences.]

Also accept the fact that this century will see a human dieoff to the tune of about three billion excess deaths. The best we can do at this point is preserve accumulated knowledge and the values that go along with reducing rather than increasing violence over time. What we're headed for is a centuries-long dark age driven by the consequences of overshoot & collapse. There will be places that manage to preserve knowledge and an enlightened culture, but these will be relatively few and far between. You want to be in one of those places. Ideally a town with a small university, farming capabilities nearby, minimal risk of town-wrecking disasters such as tornados and earthquakes, and relative climate stability. Or sacrifice the "university" criterion and search based on the rest of those, looking for a healthy local economy with a mix of practical skills. Finding those places is difficult but that's what you need to do.

[I'm already picturing leftwing monks in small universities preserving our knowledge and culture on scrolls as, outside, rightwing yahoo redneck barbarians destroy civilization in their pickup trucks.]

If Obama loses the election say goodbye to Florida, NYC and any other coastal area.

I am sorting out what I think about Obama coming out today in support of corn ethanol. I was a little surprised, knowing that we have discussed here the disadvantages of using corn for fuel vs food.

You might want to repeatedly view some Holocaust pics just for the exercise. To get you toughened up. Anybody under the age of 45 is going to see things before they die that will make them sorry they're not 75 today.

I'm no skeptic. I'm a physicist trained in meteorology. I agree with much of what is written or quoted above but what Hansen has said and will say is mostly political rhetoric not scientific consensus.

I've been beseeching my parents to stockpile food for the last year, but they're generally dismissive of my concerns. What are the rest of you doing?

I'm just glad I don't have any kids, so I won't have to look them in the eye when it finally hits home to people just how screwed we are and they start looking at those of my age and older and ask. "You knew! You saw this coming, and you did nothing! Why?"

"James Hansen, the director of the agency's [NASA's] Goddard Institute for Space Studies, received a $250,000 grant from the charitable foundation headed by former Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz. Subsequent to the Heinz Foundation grant, Hansen publicly endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president in 2004, a political endorsement considered to be highly unusual for a NASA scientist.":
http://www.freedom.org/news/200607/12/morano.phtml

James Hansen, from October 2004:

"Several years ago I received the Heinz Environment Award. I don't know who nominated me for that award or how the selection works."

"I am confident that it has no impact on my evaluation of the climate problem or on my political leanings."

"In the upcoming election I will vote for John Kerry."

Source: Columbia University.edu [pdf]:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/dai_complete.pdf

Also see: Teresa Heinz Kerry: Bag Lady for the Radical Left:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12187

NASA's Hansen Mentioned in Soros Foundations Annual Report:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/26/nasa-s-hansen-mentioned-soros-foundations-annual-report

THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE
by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

ABSTRACT:

"Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well-known but under-appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2-rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere. Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation.

Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase.

If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere."

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

_______________________________________________________________

The graph above represents temperature and CO2 levels over the past 400,000 years. It is the same exact data Al Gore and the rest of the man-made global warmers refer to. The blue line is temps, the red CO2 levels. The deep valleys represent 4 separate glaciation periods. Now look very carefully at this relationship between temps and CO2 levels and keep in mind that Gore claims this data is the 'proof' that CO2 has warmed the earth in the past. But does the graph indeed show this? Nope. In fact, rising CO2 levels all throughout this 400,000 year period actually lagged behind temperature increases ...by an average of 800 years! So it couldn't have been CO2 that got Earth out of these 4 past glaciations. Yet Gore dishonestly and continually claims otherwise.-ETL

_______________________________________________________________

"The above chart shows the range of global temperature through the last 500 million years. There is no statistical correlation between the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere through the last 500 million years and the temperature record in this interval. In fact, one of the highest levels of carbon dioxide concentration occurred during a major ice age that occurred about 450 million years ago. Carbon dioxide concentrations at that time were about 15 times higher than at present.":
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010405M

_______________________________________________________________

So, greenhouse [effect] is all about carbon dioxide, right?

Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.

In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, 'Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,' Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).

The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other 'minor greenhouse gases.' As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

_______________________________________________________________

Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many 'facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Hugo Chavez on Global Warmimg

"The environment is suffering damage that could be irreversible — global warming, the greenhouse effect, the melting of the polar ice caps, the rising sea level, hurricanes — with terrible social occurrences that will shake life on this planet."

"I believe this idea has a strong connection with reality. I don't think we have much time. Fidel Castro said in one of his speeches I read not so long ago, 'tomorrow could be too late, let's do now what we need to do'."

"I believe it is time that we take up with courage and clarity a political, social, collective and ideological offensive across the world — a real offensive that permits us to move progressively, over the next years, the next decades, leaving behind the perverse, destructive, destroyer, capitalist model and go forward in constructing the socialist model to avoid barbarism and beyond that the annihilation of life on this planet."

--Hugo Chavez, at the 16th World Festival of Youth and Students, held in Caracas on August 8-15, 2005
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/640/640p16.htm

_____________________________________________________________

Maxine Waters warns Shell president in House committee hearing

A report by Fox News, captured in a clip posted on YouTube.com (Must see video! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUaY3LhJ-IQ) , showed Waters challenging the president of Shell Oil, John Hofmeister, to guarantee the prices consumers pay will go down if the oil companies are allowed to drill wherever they want off of U.S. shores.

Hofmeister replied: "I can guarantee to the American people, because of the inaction of the United States Congress, ever-increasing prices unless the demand comes down."

The Shell exec said paying $5 at the pump "will look like a very low price in the years to come if we are prohibited from finding new reserves, new opportunities to increase supplies."

Waters responded, in part, "And guess what this liberal would be all about. This liberal will be about socializing … uh, um. …"

The congresswoman paused to collect her thoughts [for about 5-6 seconds this went on, while her colleagues behind her laughed].

"...would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies. …"

The oil executives responded, according to Fox News, by saying they've seen this before, in Hugo Chavez's Venezuela.

Congresswoman threatens to nationalize oil industry Maxine Waters warns Shell president in House committee hearing:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=65111

_____________________________________________________________

Chávez vows to nationalize all energy - International Herald Tribune:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/14/business/chavez.php

Venezuela's Chavez says government could nationalize supermarkets, food storage facilities:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/15/business/LA-FIN-Venezuela-Nationalizations.php

Chavez to nationalize telecom, utilities:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16530241/

U.S. blasts Chavez plan to nationalize electricity, phones:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2007-01-08-venezeula-usat_x.htm

If you look at the chart below, you will see that sunspot activity (during solar maxes--the individual peaks) has been relatively high since about 1900 and almost non-existent for the period between about 1625 and 1725. This period is known as the Maunder (sunspot) Minimum or "Little Ice Age".

From BBC News [yr: 2004]:
"A new [2004] analysis shows that the Sun is more active now than it has been at anytime in the previous 1,000 years. Scientists based at the Institute for Astronomy in Zurich used ice cores from Greenland to construct a picture of our star's activity in the past. They say that over the last century the number of sunspots rose at the same time that the Earth's climate became steadily warmer."..."In particular, it has been noted that between about 1645 and 1715, few sunspots were seen on the Sun's surface. This period is called the Maunder Minimum after the English astronomer who studied it. It coincided with a spell of prolonged cold weather often referred to as the "Little Ice Age". Solar scientists strongly suspect there is a link between the two events - but the exact mechanism remains elusive."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm

It's really hard to imagine how this little ball of fire could have any impact on our climate at all.

But the main arguments being made for a solar-climate connection is not so much to do with the heat of the Sun but rather with its magnetic cycles. When the Sun is more magnetically active (typically around the peak of the 11 year sunspot cycle --we are a few yrs away at the moment), the Sun's magnetic field is better able to deflect away incoming galactic cosmic rays (highly energetic charged particles coming from outside the solar system). The GCRs are thought to help in the formation of low-level cumulus clouds -the type of clouds that BLOCK sunlight and help cool the Earth. So when the Sun's MF is acting up (not like now), less GCRs reach the Earth's atmosphere, less low level sunlight-blocking clouds form, and more sunlight gets through to warm the Earth's surface...naturally. Clouds are basically made up of tiny water droplets. When minute particles in the atmosphere become ionized by incoming GCRs they become very 'attractive' to water molecules, in a purely chemical sense of the word. The process by which the Sun's increased magnetic field would deflect incoming cosmic rays is very similar to the way magnetic fields steer electrons in a cathode ray tube or electrons and other charged particles around the ring of a subatomic particle accelerator.-ETL

____________________________________________________

There's a relatively new book out on the subject titled The Chilling Stars. It's written by one of the top scientists advancing the theory (Henrik Svensmark).

http://www.sciencedaily.com/books/t/1840468157-the_chilling_stars_the_new_theory_of_climate_change.htm

And here is the website for the place where he does his research:
2008: "The Center for Sun-Climate Research at the DNSC investigates the connection between variations in the intensity of cosmic rays and climatic changes on Earth. This field of research has been given the name 'cosmoclimatology'"..."Cosmic ray intensities – and therefore cloudiness – keep changing because the Sun's magnetic field varies in its ability to repel cosmic rays coming from the Galaxy, before they can reach the Earth." :
http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate

100,000-Year Climate Pattern Linked To Sun's Magnetic Cycles:
ScienceDaily (Jun. 7, 2002) HANOVER, N.H.
Thanks to new calculations by a Dartmouth geochemist, scientists are now looking at the earth's climate history in a new light. Mukul Sharma, Assistant Professor of Earth Sciences at Dartmouth, examined existing sets of geophysical data and noticed something remarkable: the sun's magnetic activity is varying in 100,000-year cycles, a much longer time span than previously thought, and this solar activity, in turn, may likely cause the 100,000-year climate cycles on earth. This research helps scientists understand past climate trends and prepare for future ones.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020607073439.htm

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.