Warming climate disrupts Alaska natives' lives

Reuters ^ | Tuesday, April 20, 2004 | Yereth Rosen

[sweetliberty]

"They must be praying that global warming keep them from freezing their little mantis butts off during the winter below-zero weather."

.

[PeaceBeWithYou]

Baked Alaska again? Based on the same flawed logic too.

Baked Alaska:Record Heat Hits Anchorage - Yahoo(Rueters)

Baked Alaska on the Menu? - NYTimes

Baked Alaska - John Daly Debunking

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Lets see if he might read some of these threads:

Global Warming Hoax articles

[4mycountry]

Tagline ping! See post 9!

[ancient_geezer]

The debate still remains, however as to whether it is human activity that is causing or contributing to the change.

There is no genuine "debate" of that issue. There is however agenda driven, politically motivated hype suggesting mankind has more effect than is physically possible.

 

Ice Ages & Astronomical Causes
Brief Introduction to the History of Climate
by Richard A. Muller

Origin of the 100 kyr Glacial Cycle

Figure 1-1 Global warming

Figure 1-2 Climate of the last 2400 years

 

Figure 1-3 Climate of the last 12,000 years

Figure 1-4 Climate of the last 100,000 years

Figure 1-5 Climate for the last 420 kyr, from Vostok ice

 

Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable
S. Fred Singer
EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Society, Vol 80, page 183-187, April 20, 1999
http://www.sepp.org/scirsrch/EOS1999.html

" There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "

Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal

---

Mankind's impact is only 0.28% of Total Greenhouse effect

  Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED)

Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics	% of All Greenhouse Gases	% Natural	% Man-made
Water vapor	95.000%	94.999%	0.001%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)	3.618%	3.502%	0.117%
Methane (CH4)	0.360%	0.294%	0.066%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)	0.950%	0.903%	0.047%
Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.)	0.072%	0.025%	0.047%
Total	100.00%	99.72	0.28%

 

The reality is a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration over current levels, that the UN/IPCC "story line" pretends, even if it were true, could not induce significant temperature change whatever its source.

Climate Catastrophe, A spectroscopic Artifact?

"It is hardly to be expected that for CO2 doubling an increment of IR absorption at the 15 µm edges by 0.17% can cause any significant global warming or even a climate catastrophe.

The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m² [14] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n3 band as observed from satellite measurements (Hanel et al., 1971) and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m² - and not 4.3 W/m².

This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.

If we allocate 7.2 degC as greenhouse effect for the present CO2 (as asserted by Kondratjew and Moskalenko in J.T. Houghton's book The Global Climate [14]), the doubling effect should be 0.17% which is 0.012 degC only. If we take 1/80 of the 1.2 degC that result from Stefan-Boltzmann's law with a radiative forcing of 4.3 W/m², we get a similar value of 0.015 degC."

The basis of global warming models:

Ramanthan (Journal of Geophysical Review, vol. 84, pp. 4949-4958) states:

"the direct radiative effects of doubled CO2 can cause a maximum surface warming [at the equator] of about 0.2 K, and hence roughly 90% of the 2.0-2.5 K surface warming obtained by the GCM is caused by atmospheric feedback processes described above."

A Lukewarm Greenhouse
"The average warming predicted by the six methods for a doubling of CO2, is only +0.2 degC."

In otherwords, CHAOS, butterflies create hurricanes but dragonflies can't.

The UN/IPCC models achieve their results by selectively multiplying changes in heat balance for changes in CO2 concentration 10 times and more over that of any other mechanism of thermal variation. Where radiative forcing of CO2 is selectively multiplied by 10, other mechanisms of similar magnitude are not allowed to be enhanced by the same thermally driven "atmospheric feedback processes described".

The atmospheric "feedback processes described" are those implemented into UN/IPCC climate models. They constitute speculative and inadequate mechanisms at best, presumptive at worst, by which the atmosphere might respond to changes in radiative heat balance.

None of the "feedback processes" are based in any measured direct or parametric relationship selectively coupled to CO2 concentrations alone. This selective sensitivity (i.e. instability in the model) is inferred to be a cause of greater change than the initiating power input to the system.

A good read:

The Non-Science
of Global Warming
By Robert E. Stevenson, Ph.D. *
Published in 21 ^st Century Science & Technology magazine
(Winter 1996-97 edition, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 51-59)
http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/ocean-1.html

Along with the Douglas V. Hoyt's(Senior Scientist with Raytheon/ITSS) essay on the subject:
http://users.erols.com/dhoyt1/

[ancient_geezer]

I would say the risk of doing nothing outweighs that of taking action.

The alternative is collapse of world economies in the effort to effect change upon natural rythms of global weather, and subsequent consequence to living standards and well being of the worlds peoples:

 

France Worried About Heat-Wave Readiness

• PARIS - The sun is out and the jonquils are in bloom. But as spring arrives in Paris, the warmer weather has raised questions about whether France is ready for another heat wave like last summer's sizzler that killed 15,000 in this country.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95260,00.html

"France claims that the recent European heat wave (search) was responsible for the deaths of 3,000[now known to be 15k above] of its countrymen. But for most of the summer, it has been much hotter in the American West, and no one can find even one body attributable to the heat."

***

"My University of Virginia  colleague Robert Davis and I looked into the issue of heat and mortality in American cities and published our findings in several academic journals. Given all those bodies in France and the big blackout, perhaps it's a good time to get these out of the dusty library stacks and tell what we found.

People who study mortality and climate have known for years that most temperate-zone cities have had some "threshold" temperature at which daily mortality suddenly begins to skyrocket. People who study economics will argue that this is a market ripe for adaptation.

How have Americans adapted to our warming cities? They stopped dying. Even though the local temperature keeps going up and up, the threshold at which deaths skyrocket has become higher and higher, and now is beyond the highest temperatures."

***

"European cities are virtually devoid of air conditioning in large part because the energy to run them is so expensive. And why is that? Pressured by vocal environmentalists, European governments have levied energy tax after energy tax, with the latest excuse being global warming.

The mathematics of this problem are terribly transparent. In order to meet their self-imposed targets from the Kyoto Protocol (search) on global warming, European nations already have taxed energy, but they have not done enough. Consequently, even more restrictions are being proposed, especially by the German government. Unaffordable air conditioning will become even more expensive, killing more and more Europeans the next time the temperature reaches what passes for a few degrees above what is normal in Dallas.

Europe has effectively imposed a continuous blackout on air conditioning, and now it is paying the price."

[Mamzelle]

re: nothing we can do about it)))

I'll bite. (That's an American idiom meaning--"OK, convince me. Show me your arguments.")

What can be done? What would it cost? Who gets to leave the planet? (I vote for greens to leave first.)

Keep in mind how much the enviro-wackos (fanatical, demented ) do that damages. For instance, a worldwide ban on DDT virtually condemns millions to a slow and miserable death in the Third World from malaria.

First--did we really cause this change? I doubt it, but maybe we contributed to it in some part. Second--could it be reversed? No--but a lot of PhDs would get lots of grant money to try. Third--will things really be worse under a different climate, or just different? I suspect it'll work out as a draw--some places will lose, but others will win.

[RightWhale]

"They obviously don't live in the Arctic," said Patricia Cochran

Neither do most Alaska natives.

[hosepipe]

[ Warming climate disrupts Alaska natives' lives ]

Alaskan natives are so inbred with the gringos so that they are not pure Althabascan or Eskimos. Most tribes / villages depend partially on government largess. i.e. the oil money.

Only thing that remains to happen is that during the Walrus dance. They glue donkey ears to the sacred Walrus and bray repeatedly...

Johhhhhhn Keeeeerrry, Johhhhhhn Keeeeerrry, Johhhhhhn Keeeeerrry

[fella]

I heard an interesting theory about global warming the other day. It goes something like this. Our solar system at this time is passing through the dust of the Milky Ways disk. This dust is adding fuel to the Sun and causeing it to burn slightly hotter than what we consider normal. Thus our gradual warming. Something to do with our osilating orbit through the disk acounts for the warmig and cooling.