Friday, January 2, 2009


Science editor, Steve Connor, writing for the British paper, Independent, in June of 2008, had this to say:

It seems unthinkable, but for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year.

The disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, making it possible to reach the Pole sailing in a boat through open water, would be one of the most dramatic – and worrying – examples of the impact of global warming on the planet. Scientists say the ice at 90 degrees north may well have melted away by the summer.

In January of 2009, this is his story:

Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.

Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.

See, here's the basic issue: There is a group of people who want there to be an emergency, formerly called "global warming," now called "climate change," and they desperately want it to be caused by man.

Evidence of their urgent desire is the name-change.

Trouble is, for centuries the word "climate" has been defined by science as the way weather patterns change.

So the phrase, "Climate change," is both redundant and repetitive.

Climate changes by definition.

Change is...well, change.

There always has been, is now and always will be climate change.

That's because climate changes.

That's what it does for a living.

The atmosphere is about 51,006,560,000,000 cubic meters in volume.

That's big...really big!

The volume weight of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere from all sources, including man, is about 1,906 million metric tons.

The atmosphere weighs about 1.01 E5 newtons per square meter of Earth's surface.

Multiplying it out and taking the derivative reveals that the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from all sources is a very, very, very small ratio...not enough to account for climate change or global warming either one.

A much more observable effect on Earth's atmosphere is the sun, an entity over which we have relatively little control...most of us any way.

There is a direct correlation between sunspot activity and the temperature of the earth's atmosphere over time.

As a matter of fact, the chart at the beginning of Al Gore's book, "An Inconvenient Truth," which he said showed a cause and effect relationship between man made carbon build up and so-called global warming, actually showed exactly the opposite. HIS OWN CHART!

But he stated his "truth" with such confidence that many of you bought into it.

Didn't you?

Just magnify the chart and look at the figures.

A high school drop-out could figure it out...why can't you?

Carbon Dioxide followed periods of warming. It did NOT precede them.

Therefore, an increase in CO2 levels was caused by global warming, which actually correlated to an increase in sun-spot activity in those time frames.

Ahhhh. The times they are a changin'.


shoprat said...

Your average volcano puts more pollutants into the atmosphere than man has in his entire history. And the results is global cooling due to the ash and other pollutants directing sunlight back into space.

Satyavati devi dasi said...

So this means it's all right for us to keep spewing stuff into the atmosphere, right?

Do you seriously believe that we have NO impact on what's going on with the climate?

Do you further seriously believe that you can analyze climate change over a single season and get an accurate answer, instead of looking at long term trends, which have showed a steady increase in average temperature over the past hundred years or so?

Joe said...

Satyavati devi dasi: Why do you think those things are OK? I never said any of them.

I struggle to understand why a person as intelligent as you completely misses the point of a really well written and well researched post.

I did not say "'s all right for us to keep spewing stuff into the atmosphere."

I did not say "...that we have NO impact on what's going on with the climate."

I never said " can analyze climate change over a single season and get an accurate answer, instead of looking at long term trends."

Over the long term, as I noted in my post, climate definition. That's what climate means, at least as defined in science text-books.

Why don't you believe in science?

Have you actually studied the relationship between sun spot activity and Earth's temperature over long terms?

When you say "...a steady increase in average temperature over the past hundred years or so..." why don't you use estimates for a longer period of time, as I did, using core ice samples back as far as the days of mamoths and dinosaurs?

I wonder?

David Wyatt said...

Joe, I find myself laughing at people like this "scientist!" It's like the woman who couldn't sleep at night, so she went to her doctor once again. He told her to simply eat something before going to bed. Amazed, she said, "But doctor! Just last week when I came in you told me NOT to eat just before bed!" His indignant response: "Tut tut, woman! Science has made great strides in this past week!!" The obvious point being that science is simply man's observation of what he thinks he sees! No wonder it's like a chicken, molting all the time, as good ol' Dr. Criswell used to say! Great post brother Joe! May the Lord bless you!

Tapline said...

Joe, Outstanding post. Unfortunately, the dye is cast and there is money to be made. The politicians are there to collect and they will....laws will be passed. Never mind the people who can't even afford to put a decent meal on their table....No NO....:They cant make money they can only spend the small amount they bring home and it looks like it will be less in the future....I ramble....stay well....

Pasadena Closet Conservative said...

But they all made their big money off this goofy theory, didn't they, especially the likes of Al Gore.

Anonymous said...

Well written post by the people who took the small bus to school.

Joe said...

Anonymous: "Well written post by the people who took the small bus to school."

I'm not certain what that means.

This post was actually only written by one person, me.

I was educated in a time when I was required to be able to read, write, calculate, learn history, learn science and learn geography.

At most of the public schools I attended, students had daily devotions.

I was taught by both public school teachers and civilian teachers on military bases. I attended hich school at Paris American High School, and at Warner Robins Senior High School, in Georgia.

I studied Psychology, Sociology, Education and Religion at Stetson University in DeLand, Florida.

My areas of "expertise" were physiological psychology and methods of social research.

Except while at Paris American High School, I usually walked to school (they were always in the neighborhood), until I was 17, when I got to use the family car, as long as I made sure everybody in the family got where they needed to be when they needed to be there.

So, what did your comment mean?