Not the End of the World as We Know It

By Olaf Stampf

How bad is climate change really? Are catastrophic floods and terrible droughts headed our way? Despite widespread fears of a greenhouse hell, the latest computer simulations are delivering far less dramatic predictions about tomorrow’s climate.

DPA

German sunworshippers enjoy a cocktail on a Baltic Sea beach in early May. Germany could experience a tourist boom as a result of climate change.

Svante Arrhenius, the father of the greenhouse effect, would be called a heretic today. Far from issuing the sort of dire predictions about climate change which are common nowadays, the Swedish physicist dared to predict a paradise on earth for humans when he announced, in April 1896, that temperatures were rising — and that it would be a blessing for all.Arrhenius, who later won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, calculated that the release of carbon dioxide — or carbonic acid as it was then known — through burning coal, oil and natural gas would lead to a significant rise in temperatures worldwide. But, he argued, “by the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates,” potentially making poor harvests and famine a thing of the past.

Arrhenius was merely expressing a view that was firmly entrenched in the collective consciousness of the day: warm times are good times; cold times are bad.

During the so-called Medieval Warm Period between about 900 and 1300 A.D., for example, the Vikings raised livestock on Greenland and sailed to North America. New cities were built all across Europe, and the continent’s population grew from 30 million to 80 million.

Full Article

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming – Now Skeptics

May 15, 2007

Posted by Marc Morano – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov – 9:14 PM ET

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming – Now Skeptics

Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research

Following the U.S. Senate’s vote today on a global warming measure (see today’s AP article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven “consensus” on man-made global warming.

The list below is just the tip of the iceberg. A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report. Please stay tuned to this website, as this new government report is set to redefine the current climate debate.

In the meantime, please review the list of scientists below and ask yourself why the media is missing one of the biggest stories in climate of 2007. Feel free to distribute the partial list of scientists who recently converted to skeptics to your local schools and universities. The voices of rank and file scientists opposing climate doomsayers can serve as a counter to the alarmism that children are being exposed to on a daily basis. (See Washington Post April 16, 2007 article about kids fearing of a “climactic Armageddon” )

The media’s climate fear factor seemingly grows louder even as the latest science grows less and less alarming by the day. (See Der Spiegel May 7, 2007 article: Not the End of the World as We Know It ) It is also worth noting that the proponents of climate fears are increasingly attempting to suppress dissent by skeptics. (See UPI May 10, 2007 article: U.N. official says it’s ‘completely immoral’ to doubt global warming fears )

Once Believers, Now Skeptics ( Link to pdf version )

Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is “unknown” and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of being motivated by money, noting that “the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!” “Glaciers’ chronicles or historical archives point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena. This fact is confirmed by mathematical meteorological theories. So, let us be cautious,” Allegre explained in a September 21, 2006 article in the French newspaper L’EXPRESS. The National Post in Canada also profiled Allegre on March 2, 2007, noting “Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution.” Allegre now calls fears of a climate disaster “simplistic and obscuring the true dangers” mocks “the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man’s role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters.” Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. “By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century,” Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity” in which the scientists warned that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.”

Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a “Kyoto house” in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997. Wiskel wanted to prove that the Kyoto Protocol’s goals were achievable by people making small changes in their lives. But after further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel reversed his scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic, that he recently wrote a book titled “The Emperor’s New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming.” A November 15, 2006 Edmonton Sun article explains Wiskel’s conversion while building his “Kyoto house”: “Instead, he said he realized global warming theory was full of holes and ‘red flags,’ and became convinced that humans are not responsible for rising temperatures.” Wiskel now says “the truth has to start somewhere.” Noting that the Earth has been warming for 18,000 years, Wiskel told the Canadian newspaper, “If this happened once and we were the cause of it, that would be cause for concern. But glaciers have been coming and going for billions of years.” Wiskel also said that global warming has gone “from a science to a religion” and noted that research money is being funneled into promoting climate alarmism instead of funding areas he considers more worthy. “If you funnel money into things that can’t be changed, the money is not going into the places that it is needed,” he said.

Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel’s top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. “”Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye,” Shaviv said in February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article. According to Shaviv, the C02 temperature link is only “incriminating circumstantial evidence.” “Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming” and “it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist,” Shaviv noted pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere. According to the National Post, Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 “will not dramatically increase the global temperature.” “Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant,” Shaviv explained. Shaviv also wrote on August 18, 2006 that a colleague of his believed that “CO2 should have a large effect on climate” so “he set out to reconstruct the phanerozoic temperature. He wanted to find the CO2 signature in the data, but since there was none, he slowly had to change his views.” Shaviv believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made global warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence. “I think this is common to many of the scientists who think like us (that is, that CO2 is a secondary climate driver). Each one of us was working in his or her own niche. While working there, each one of us realized that things just don’t add up to support the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) picture. So many had to change their views,” he wrote.

Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical,” Evans wrote in an April 30, 2007 blog. “But after 2000 the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker — better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds,” Evans wrote. “As Lord Keynes famously said, ‘When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?’” he added. Evans noted how he benefited from climate fears as a scientist. “And the political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990’s, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn’t believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet! But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence outlined above fell away or reversed,” Evans wrote. “The pre-2000 ice core data was the central evidence for believing that atmospheric carbon caused temperature increases. The new ice core data shows that past warmings were *not* initially caused by rises in atmospheric carbon, and says nothing about the strength of any amplification. This piece of evidence casts reasonable doubt that atmospheric carbon had any role in past warmings, while still allowing the possibility that it had a supporting role,” he added. “Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. The science of global warming has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly supports carbon emissions as the cause of global warming, to the point of sometimes rubbishing or silencing critics,” he concluded. (Evans bio link )

Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. “I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself,” Murty explained on August 17, 2006. “I switched to the other side in the early 1990’s when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously,” Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”

Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears “poppycock.” According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said “global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed.” “The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove anything,” Bellamy added. Bellamy’s conversion on global warming did not come without a sacrifice as several environmental groups have ended their association with him because of his views on climate change. The severing of relations came despite Bellamy’s long activism for green campaigns. The UK Times reported Bellamy “won respect from hardline environmentalists with his campaigns to save Britain’s peat bogs and other endangered habitats. In Tasmania he was arrested when he tried to prevent loggers cutting down a rainforest.”

Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation.” de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006. “I accept there may be small changes. But I see the risk of anything serious to be minute,” he added. “One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence is not a good reason for complacency. But I believe the billions of dollars committed to GW research and lobbying for GW and for Kyoto treaties etc could be better spent on uncontroversial and very real environmental problems (such as air pollution, poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved health services) that we know affect tens of millions of people,” de Freitas concluded. de Freitas was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases.”

Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s ( See Time Magazine’s 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing Bryson: & see Newsweek’s 1975 article “The Cooling World” citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms “sky is falling” man-made global warming fears. Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?” Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. “All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air,” Bryson said. “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide,” he added. “We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind’s addition of ‘greenhouse gases’ until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used. We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question — too important to ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem,” Bryson explained in 2005.

Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research. Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, “I started as a anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN’s IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics.” “After that, I changed my mind,” Labohn explained. Labohn co-authored the 2004 book “Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a Dogma,” with chemical engineer Dick Thoenes who was the former chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society. Labohm was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “’Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.’”

Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. “I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change,” Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his “conversion” happened following his research on “the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific.” “[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator),” Patterson explained. “Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances,” he wrote. “As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate,” Patterson noted. Patterson says his conversion “probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not were activists want me to go.” Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics. “When I go to a scientific meeting, there’s lots of opinion out there, there’s lots of discussion (about climate change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority,” Patterson told the Winnipeg Sun on February 13, 2007. Patterson, who believes the sun is responsible for the recent warm up of the Earth, ridiculed the environmentalists and the media for not reporting the truth. “But if you listen to [Canadian environmental activist David] Suzuki and the media, it’s like a tiger chasing its tail. They try to outdo each other and all the while proclaiming that the debate is over but it isn’t — come out to a scientific meeting sometime,” Patterson said. In a separate interview on April 26, 2007 with a Canadian newspaper, Patterson explained that the scientific proof favors skeptics. “I think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we’re about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere,” he said. “The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it’s not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles.”

Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw, took a scientific journey from a believer of man-made climate change in the form of global cooling in the 1970’s all the way to converting to a skeptic of current predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. “At the beginning of the 1970s I believed in man-made climate cooling, and therefore I started a study on the effects of industrial pollution on the global atmosphere, using glaciers as a history book on this pollution,” Dr. Jaworowski, wrote on August 17, 2006. “With the advent of man-made warming political correctness in the beginning of 1980s, I already had a lot of experience with polar and high altitude ice, and I have serious problems in accepting the reliability of ice core CO2 studies,” Jaworowski added. Jaworowski, who has published many papers on climate with a focus on CO2 measurements in ice cores, also dismissed the UN IPCC summary and questioned what the actual level of C02 was in the atmosphere in a March 16, 2007 report in EIR science entitled “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time.” “We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels,” Jaworowski wrote. “For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists—and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time,” Jaworowski wrote. “The hypothesis, in vogue in the 1970s, stating that emissions of industrial dust will soon induce the new Ice Age, seem now to be a conceited anthropocentric exaggeration, bringing into discredit the science of that time. The same fate awaits the present,” he added. Jaworowski believes that cosmic rays and solar activity are major drivers of the Earth’s climate. Jaworowski was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part: “It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth’s climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases.”

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence. “I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contribution of C02. The association seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe,” Clark said in a 2005 documentary “Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You’re Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change.” “However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on the Kyoto protocol,” Clark explained. “Actually, many other leading climate researchers also have serious concerns about the science underlying the [Kyoto] Protocol,” he added.

Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa, converted from believer to skeptic after conducting scientific studies of climate history. “I simply accepted the (global warming) theory as given,” Veizer wrote on April 30, 2007 about predictions that increasing C02 in the atmosphere was leading to a climate catastrophe. “The final conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did the CO2 scenario,” Veizer wrote. “It was the results of my work on past records, on geological time scales, that led me to realize the discrepancies with empirical observations. Trying to understand the background issues of modeling led to realization of the assumptions and uncertainties involved,” Veizer explained. “The past record strongly favors the solar/cosmic alternative as the principal climate driver,” he added. Veizer acknowledgez the Earth has been warming and he believes in the scientific value of climate modeling. “The major point where I diverge from the IPCC scenario is my belief that it underestimates the role of natural variability by proclaiming CO2 to be the only reasonable source of additional energy in the planetary balance. Such additional energy is needed to drive the climate. The point is that most of the temperature, in both nature and models, arises from the greenhouse of water vapor (model language ‘positive water vapor feedback’,) Veizer wrote. “Thus to get more temperature, more water vapor is needed. This is achieved by speeding up the water cycle by inputting more energy into the system,” he continued. “Note that it is not CO2 that is in the models but its presumed energy equivalent (model language ‘prescribed CO2’). Yet, the models (and climate) would generate a more or less similar outcome regardless where this additional energy is coming from. This is why the solar/cosmic connection is so strongly opposed, because it can influence the global energy budget which, in turn, diminishes the need for an energy input from the CO2 greenhouse,” he wrote.

More to follow…

Related Links:

Senator Inhofe declares climate momentum shifting away from Gore (The Politico op ed)

Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate

Global Warming on Mars & Cosmic Ray Research Are Shattering Media Driven “Consensus’

Global Warming: The Momentum has Shifted to Climate Skeptics

Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming – Now a Skeptic

Top Israeli Astrophysicist Recants His Belief in Manmade Global Warming – Now Says Sun Biggest Factor in Warming

Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune’s Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say

Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears- Claim 95% of Weathermen Skeptical

MIT Climate Scientist Calls Fears of Global Warming ‘Silly’ – Equates Concerns to ‘Little Kids’ Attempting to “Scare Each Other”

Weather Channel TV Host Goes ‘Political’- Stars in Global Warming Film Accusing U.S. Government of ‘Criminal Neglect’

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics

ABC-TV Meteorologist: I Don’t Know A Single Weatherman Who Believes ‘Man-Made Global Warming Hype’

The Weather Channel Climate Expert Refuses to Retract Call for Decertification for Global Warming Skeptics

Senator Inhofe Announces Public Release Of “Skeptic’s Guide To Debunking Global Warming”

# # #

Reading the weather Sunny Weather forecast and listening to the pounding rain outside my window I wonder how to believe the Global Warming Wackos. The month of April was well below average tempurature. When will the wackos and the media actually say that there has been no increase in Global Tempurature since 1998_.

Nu blommar det i dalens famn

Nu har azaleorna börjat slå ut i Slottskogen. Men för att hela Azaleadalen ska blomma krävs mer värme.

- Blir det 18-19 grader under någon dag, då går det snabbt. Då slår allt ut på en gång, säger Per Åberg, enhetschef i Slottsskogen.

Redan nu är ganska mycket utslaget av de tidiga sorterna. Per Åberg tror uppskattningsvis att 30-40 procent av Azaleadalens buskar redan blommar.

- Blomningen är gång och vi har satt upp skyltarna som talar om att Azaledalen blommar, säger han.

Det var 1972 som den stora planteringen och anläggningen av den kända dalen gjordes. Men några azaleor planterades redan på 60-talet.

Blomningsperioden är kort och intensiv.

- Den är egentligen bara 14 dagar. Men kommer det slagregn så faller blommorna av ännu tidigare. De är sköra, berättar Per Åberg.

SÃ¥ hÃ¥ll utkik! SÃ¥ fort det blir lite varmare kommer dalen alltsÃ¥ att blomma i sin fulla prakt – och göteborgarna att börja vallfärda dit med sina picknickkorgar.

Climate study on mysterious night shinning clouds which form in the polar regions, are being seen at lower latitudes than ever before, and have recently grown brighter and more frequent, suggesting a connection to global change. They are normally observed at altitudes of 50 miles above the Earth’s surface on the edge of space in the coldest place in our atmosphere.

Hampton, VA -NASA’s Aeronomy of Ice in the Mesosphere (AIM) mission led by Hampton University is scheduled to launch on Wed., April 25 at 4:35 p.m. EDT from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. via a Pegasus XL launch vehicle. Hampton University is the first Historically Black College and University to have total mission responsibility for a NASA satellite mission.

“Hampton University is leading the way in innovative research and our faculty’s outstanding leadership and excellence is being recognized not just within the scientific community, but all over the world,” said HU President Dr. William R. Harvey.

AIM will determine why polar mesospheric clouds (PMCs) form and why they vary. Polar mesospheric clouds are also called “noctilucent,” or night shining, clouds. This is NASA’s first mission dedicated to exploration of these unique and mysterious clouds, said Dr. James M. Russell, III, AIM’s principal investigator. Russell is professor and co-director of Hampton University’s Center for Atmospheric Sciences.

“The occurrence of these clouds at the edge of space and what causes them to vary is not understood,” said Russell. “AIM will provide the comprehensive data needed to confirm current theories for cloud formation or develop new ones and allow researchers to build computer simulations that reproduce the observed changes in these clouds.”

PMCs, which form in the polar regions, are being seen at lower latitudes than ever before, and have recently grown brighter and more frequent, suggesting a connection to global change. They are normally observed at altitudes of 50 miles above the Earth’s surface on the edge of space in the coldest place in our atmosphere.

By measuring PMCs and the thermal, chemical and dynamical environment in which they form, the connection between these clouds and the meteorology of the polar mesosphere will be better understood. In the end, this will provide the basis for study of long-term variability in the mesospheric climate and its relationship to global change.

Under Russell’s direction, Hampton University is responsible for the entire mission including hardware, software, flight operations, science team leadership, science data collection, reporting, data archival for use by the scientific community, and education and public outreach. Assisting Russell is an international science team and HU faculty, staff and students.

During the launch and while AIM is in orbit, members of the media are invited to view AIM’s operation from the Project Data Center on HU’s campus where real time count down and video coverage of the launch will be received.

See also:

Kracatoa to Nasa’s Mysterious Night Shinning Clouds

		WeatherBrains – 2007-04-30 Weather Brains Bios

WeatherBrains 66: “Policy and Law”

April 30th, 2007

WeatherBrains Episode 66 is now online (April 30, 2007).

Welcome to WeatherBrains, a weekly audio program for people who love weather. Please take a minute to visit our new global warming sister site, ClimateBrains…but prepare to be nice, this is a no fighting zone.

In this week’s episode:

Get Off The Bus Part II: David goes right to the source to find out more about passengers getting off of a Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) bus that stopped because of a Tornado Warning. We hear from Frank Jennings, VP of Transportation for DART;

New Home – New Radio: A hot topic on WeatherBrains, weather radios and mobile homes. Indiana now has a law requiring new mobile homes to be equipped with emergency weather radios. We’ll talk with Phil Hoy, the Indiana State Representative who sponsored the bill;

Around The Roundtable: Summertime forecast frustration and cold, cold, cold temperatures in the arrowhead of Minnesota;

The Week In Weather: An update from tornado-ravaged Enterprise, AL…airlines affected by weather…and some strange weather news from “across the pond”;

This Week In Weather History: One of the pioneers of U. S. weather forecasting…chasing the chasers…and a new channel that changed the weather for all of us. Bill Murray has This Week In Weather History

http://www.weatherbrains.com/audio/wb043007.mp3

Swenglish Rantings Radio – 070430

Here are a bunch of New Articles,

I Still have to crunch these down,

Enjoy,

In earlier articles I have seen that those that pick companies to be given the benefit of the “Carbon Credits” get in early in the companies Stock and make a killing. Two of the companies in China, were reported to have had stock gains as high as 600 percent. This year it was reported that Al Gore actually buys “Carbon Credits” from his own companies.

None of this is any surprise, the money changers on “Wall Street” are eager to trade phony “Carbon Credits”, set clients up to purchase stocks from companies in developing countries, that instead of putting the “Carbon Credit” windfall into upgrades to reduce pollution will instead push the international money out to investors in the form of dividends.

Industry caught in carbon ‘smokescreen’

By Fiona Harvey and Stephen Fidler in London

Published: April 25 2007 22:07 | Last updated: April 25 2007 22:07

Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on “carbon credit” projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.

A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.

Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway.

The growing political salience of environmental politics has sparked a “green gold rush”, which has seen a dramatic expansion in the number of businesses offering both companies and individuals the chance to go “carbon neutral”, offsetting their own energy use by buying carbon credits that cancel out their contribution to global warming.

The burgeoning regulated market for carbon credits is expected to more than double in size to about $68.2bn by 2010, with the unregulated voluntary sector rising to $4bn in the same period.

The FT investigation found:

â–  Widespread instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.

■ Industrial companies profiting from doing very little – or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.

â–  Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.

â–  A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.

â–  Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of European Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts.

Francis Sullivan, environment adviser at HSBC, the UK’s biggest bank that went carbon-neutral in 2005, said he found “serious credibility concerns” in the offsetting market after evaluating it for several months.

“The police, the fraud squad and trading standards need to be looking into this. Otherwise people will lose faith in it,” he said.

These concerns led the bank to ignore the market and fund its own carbon reduction projects directly.

Some companies are benefiting by asking “green” consumers to pay them for cleaning up their own pollution. For instance, DuPont, the chemicals company, invites consumers to pay $4 to eliminate a tonne of carbon dioxide from its plant in Kentucky that produces a potent greenhouse gas called HFC-23. But the equipment required to reduce such gases is relatively cheap. DuPont refused to comment and declined to specify its earnings from the project, saying it was at too early a stage to discuss.

The FT has also found examples of companies setting up as carbon offsetters without appearing to have a clear idea of how the markets operate. In response to FT inquiries about its sourcing of carbon credits, one company, carbonvoucher.com, said it had not taken payments for offsets.

Blue Source, a US offsetting company, invites consumers to offset carbon emissions by investing in enhanced oil recovery, which pumps carbon dioxide into depleted oil wells to bring up the remaining oil. However, Blue Source said that because of the high price of oil, this process was often profitable in itself, meaning operators were making extra revenues from selling “carbon credits” for burying the carbon.

There is nothing illegal in these practices. However, some companies that are offsetting their emissions have avoided such projects because customers may find them controversial.

BP said it would not buy credits resulting from improvements in industrial efficiency or from most renewable energy projects in developed countries.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html

Swedes are not fooled by Global Warming Propaganda.

A Swedish study, in which some 2,500 people were interviewed on climate and environmental issues, compiled by Demoskop and commissioned by Swedish TV4, showed 60 percent of the Swedes polled were unwilling to lower their standard of living to help stop global warming.

Thirty Percent of the Swedes said they were not even worried about Climate change according to the study that was published on Tuesday.

Anders Lindholm, the head of the Demoskop polling institute which carried out the study, told the daily Dagens Nyheter.”Buying environmentally friendly products, such as cars, now has status”. Status and being part of a group of environmental activists that throw reason, logic and Science aside is not appealing to well educated Swedes.

“Only a few(Swedes) however are willing to make changes in the way they travel and about half of the respondents said they would not travel less”. Anders Lindholm, Demoskop

Few Swedes are persuaded by the environmentalist propaganda found in glitzy Science Fiction presentations such as Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”, which was ridiculed by scientists as being lacking in science and geared towards children.
Anders Lindholm went on to say that “Only a few however are willing to make changes in the way they travel and about half of the respondents said they would not travel less”.

Clearly indicated by Tuesday’s Swedish Study on Climate and Environmental issues, compiled by Demoskop and commissioned by Swedish TV4, Logic & Reason are both prevalent in Swedish Society.

Unfortunately, members of Sweden’s Newspapers and Television are not part of the well educated Swedish Majority that recognize the swindle being fabricated by the bankers, International Regulatory Organizations & radical environmentalists who are hoping for profits and gains by new laws, new markets and membership. Too many articles have been written here in Sweden misrepresenting scientific data, containing misleading language, using sensational photos or headlines and unfounded conclusions. As each new scientific study is released a new layer is pealed away. Al Gore says a 20 foot rise in sea level will displace millions of people. Yes, a 20 foot rise in sea level would displace millions of people, but not even the United Nations with it’s well publicized forth IPCC study can give a scientific probability more then a foot or two over the next century and a half. The Emperor of Environmental Propaganda has no Clothes, “Mr. Gore seeing you naked is a scary thought.”

It is heartening to know that most Swedes know a Global Warming Snow Job when they shovel through it.” Swedes and others have to take action before Politicians seeking favor with vocal self-serving Special Interest Groups manage to pass laws that damage not only our economy but society itself.

SwenglishRantingsRadio20070425.mp3

Swenglish Rantings Radio – 070425

“An Inconvenient Truth” Discussion

CNN RECORD SNOWFALL

		WeatherBrains – 2007-04-23 Weather Brains Bios

Episode 65: “Who’s Drivin’ the Bus?”

April 23rd, 2007

WeatherBrains Episode 65 is now online (April 23, 2007).

Welcome to WeatherBrains, a weekly audio program for people who love weather.

In this week’s episode:

Get Off The Bus: We talk with Drew Burroughs from Dallas, TX, who was asked, along with other passengers, to leave a Dallas Area Rapid Transit bus during a Tornado Warning;

More Brains: Like forked lightning…WeatherBrains branches out with a new website. ClimateBrains allows you to post, read and write all things Global Warming;

In the Weather Roundtable: “An Inconvenient Truth” (Al Gore’s global warming movie) will be required viewing in schools in England. Also: One of the driest places on earth and stadium safety during storms;

This Week In Weather History: Think lightning (and tornadoes) don’t strike the same place twice? The first tornado picture … and the infamous video that still has people driving for cover in the wrong place! Bill Murray has TWIWH.

http://www.weatherbrains.com/audio/wb042307.mp3

Telegraph.co.uk – In a Report by Liz Lightfoot, the Education Editor on 17/04/2007. it is illustrated that many Parents realize Al Gore’s movie which has been criticized by many highly respected climate scientists, is inaccurate and politically motivated. The Telegraph reports that the parents are threatening a legal challenge over the Government’s decision to send it to every secondary school.

The film by Al Gore, the former US vice-president, won an Oscar for the best documentary, although it was basically a science fiction production based on absolutely no known or accepted scientific predictions. Gore would have the public believe the sea level will increase by 20 feet over several decades. The even most recent reports by the politically biased IPCC, estimate that the range of sea level increase is at most less then two feet over 150 years but more likely closer to seven inches over 150 years.

One example of how Al Gore was found to have mislead the public was by placing two charts showing temperature rise and CO2 Rise and not telling people that the pronounced CO2 rise came many hundreds of years after a pronounced rise in temperatures on the charts. Al Gore also has been criticized by the scientific community for not stating that less than six to three percent of all greenhouse gases are influenced by human activities. An Inconvenient Truth discounts the normal high solar output by the cyclic sun spot activity the earth now finds itself in currently. It is well known that during high sun spot activity solar wind disrupts radiation from outside of the galaxy, which alters the water vapor in the earth’s atmosphere and allows for increased cloud formation. What is perhaps even more troubling to the scientific community is that Al Gore and his advocates in the media have ignored the fact that there has been no increase in Global Temperature since 1998.

Al Gore’s work of Science Fiction the Hollywood favorite movie “An Inconvenient Truth” is deliberately designed to scare children and impressionable members of society to live in fear instead of reacting rationally.

Alan Johnson, the Education Secretary, says he wants teachers to use it to stimulate children into discussing climate change and global warming. The parents have correctly deemed this misguided direction by Alan Johnson to be damaging to the children and a discredit to education in general.

Parents realize that the circulation of the film by the Government amounts to political indoctrination and is in breach of the Education Act 2002. Derek Tipp, their spokesman, has urged Mr Johnson to stop the film being sent out.

Derek Tipp, the parents group spokesman stated: “The film goes well beyond the consensus view and is not therefore suitable material to present to children who need to be given clear and balanced, factually accurate information.”

A balanced report would state that there has been fluctuating plus and minus glacial gain and loss in both the Arctic and the Antarctic, moreover there is little data on most of the world’s glaciers.

There is enough political indoctrination in the schools by left wing radicals. There have been enough Failed Left Wing Education Experiments. Science and Math should be left to true science, the scare tactics of the left wing radicals must not be allowed to contaminate the classroom.