Tag Archives: Anthropogenic Global Warming

UN admits the sun may cause global warming

Skeptics of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming have been saying for years now, that if the Earth indeed is warming — which is also disputed (see “Global Cooling for Last 10 Years” and “Climategate scientist: no global warming since 1995“) — the cause is not human but rather solar activities.

The United Nations’  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the world’s most powerful proponent of both global warming (now called “climate change”) and man-made global warming. The IPCC’s report on global warming even garnered a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, which the UN body shared with climate hypocrite-fraudster Al Gore.

GorePachauriAl Gore and Chair of UN’s IPCC Rajendra Pachauri (a porn writer) with their Nobel Peace Prize

But the IPCC report was found to be riddled with mistakes: The Himalayan glaciers are not melting. The Amazon rain forest are not disappearing. And it’s 20%, not 55%, of the Netherlands that is below sea level.

Now another report by the same IPCC finally admits what some scientists have been saying for years — our Sun’s activities may play a significant role in global warming!

solar flareNASA image of a solar flare on the Sun, taken in June 2012.

 

Maxim Lott reports for FoxNews, February 01, 2013, that a leaked draft of an upcoming report by the United Nations’ IPCC says that heat from the sun may play a larger role than previously thought: “[Results] do suggest the possibility of a much larger impact of solar variations on the stratosphere than previously thought, and some studies have suggested that this may lead to significant regional impacts on climate.”

The report was leaked by StopGreenSuicide blogger Alec Rawls, who told FoxNews.com that the U.N.’s statements on solar activity were his main motivation for leaking the document.

Rawls first leaked the report last December. He wrote on his blog: “The public needs to know now how the main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself.”

He also blames the U.N. for burying its point about the effect of the sun in Chapter 11 of the report: “Even after the IPCC acknowledges extensive evidence for … solar forcing beyond what they included in their models, they still make no attempt to account for this omission in their predictions. … It’s insane.”

Despite the IPCC’s admission, some climatologists still say that the report is important, but not game-changing.

Pat Michaels, the former president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and current director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, said: “The solar component is real but not of sufficient magnitude to have driven most of the warming of the late 20th century.” Michaels also points out that the U.N. report says the effect of solar activity will be “much smaller than the warming expected from increases in [man-made] greenhouse gases.”

But even Michaels admits that while the Earth had warmed over the last two decades, it did so more slowly than the U.N. had predicted: “Climate science has the problem of trying to explain why we are now in our 17th year without a significant warming trend. As a result, you are seeing many forecasts of warming for this century being ratcheted down.”

Aaron Huertas of the Union of Concerned Scientists says that the focus on solar activity distracts from the big picture — the fact that the Earth is warming: “I see climate contrarians try this trick almost every time a big new solar study comes out. They somehow tend to neglect mentioning that solar variation is smaller than the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide. The basic evidence is that solar activity has varied a bit while global temperature keeps going up.”

Blogger Rawls argues what should really worry us is not global warming, but global cooling, due to a fall in solar activity: “Unlike warming, cooling really is dangerous, regularly dropping the planet into hundred-thousand-year-long glacial periods.”

An estimate from NASA said that solar variations caused 25% of the 1.1 degree Fahrenheit warming that has been observed over the past century. NASA has said that there is evidence that the most recent “Little Ice Age” was caused by a dip in solar activity: “Almost no sunspots were observed on the sun’s surface during the period from 1650 to 1715. This extended absence of solar activity may have been partly responsible for the Little Ice Age in Europe,” during which temperatures were colder by about 1.8 degrees F than they are today.

Global Warming, man-made or sun-made, is no idle chatter among scientists.

Global Warming has very serious implications and consequences because it is used by very powerful forces in our world, behind the façade of the United Nations, to push for Agenda 21 — a blueprint for global political control.

The number 21 refers to an agenda for the 21st Century. In the name of environmentalism and sustainability, Agenda 21 is a comprehensive blueprint of action to be taken globally, nationally, and locally by organizations of the UN, governments, and major groups in every area in which humans directly affect the environment.

For Fellowship of the Minds’ many posts on Agenda 21, go to the links colored dark red on our “Police State / NWO” page. Click here.

See also:

A report by the Royal Academy of Engineering warns that a solar “superstorm” will hit Earth some time in the near future, knocking out  communications satellites, and cause dangerous power surges in the national grid and disrupt crucial navigation aids and aircraft avionics. But it’s impossible to predict more than about 30 minutes before it actually happens. Solar superstorms are estimated to occur once every 100 or 200 years, with the last one hitting the Earth in 1859.

~Eowyn

Extreme Weather Is Another Global Warming Lie

A year ago, someone hacked into and leaked the e-mails of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU), thereby exposing to the world the underhanded and downright anti-science acts of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) cabal. The cabal had suppressed data contrary to AGW and blackballed skeptical scientists by preventing their work from being published in peer-reviewed journals.

After Climategate broke into the news, CRU Director Dr. Phil Jones made the following startling admissions

  • He had “misplaced” much of the raw data on which he based his AGW claims, although the data are absolutely essential for other scientists to verify and replicate his claims.
  • There’s been no global warming since 1995.
  • There really was a Medieval Warm Period, which Jones had denied and conveniently left out of his famous “hockey stick” graph on which he rests his AGW claims.

Despite those admissions, Jones and other Warmists such as Al Gore still insist that AGW ManBearPig is real! The only difference is that they now call ManBearPig by another name: It’s not Global Warming, it’s Climate Change!!!

And to get around the inconvenient truths that not only has there been no global warming since 1995, but the globe had a Medieval Warm Period before industrialization brought those warming-causing CO2 emissions, the Warmists now switch to weather extremes as evidence of climate change/global warming. Summers are getting hotter! Winters are getting colder and snowier! There’ll be more storms, hurricanes, cyclones, and tornados!

Alas, as the following article shows, like its predecessor Global Warming, the purported phenomenon of Extreme Weather is also not true. Global atmospheric data from 1871 to the present show no evidence that our weather is getting more extreme. Given the testimony of the empirical data, the claim of extreme weather is yet another lie of the Global Warming cabal.

~Eowyn

The Weather Isn’t Getting Weirder

The latest research belies the idea that storms are getting more extreme.

By Anne Jolis – Wall St. Journal – Feb 10, 2011

Last week a severe storm froze Dallas under a sheet of ice, just in time to disrupt the plans of the tens of thousands of (American) football fans descending on the city for the Super Bowl. On the other side of the globe, Cyclone Yasi slammed northeastern Australia, destroying homes and crops and displacing hundreds of thousands of people.

Some climate alarmists would have us believe that these storms are yet another baleful consequence of man-made CO2 emissions. In addition to the latest weather events, they also point to recent cyclones in Burma, last winter’s fatal chills in Nepal and Bangladesh, December’s blizzards in Britain, and every other drought, typhoon and unseasonable heat wave around the world.

But is it true? To answer that question, you need to understand whether recent weather trends are extreme by historical standards. The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project is the latest attempt to find out, using super-computers to generate a dataset of global atmospheric circulation from 1871 to the present.

As it happens, the project’s initial findings, published last month, show no evidence of an intensifying weather trend. “In the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2 world in 100 years,” atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, one of the researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University of Colorado, Boulder. “So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871.”

In other words, researchers have yet to find evidence of more-extreme weather patterns over the period, contrary to what the models predict. “There’s no data-driven answer yet to the question of how human activity has affected extreme weather,” adds Roger Pielke Jr., another University of Colorado climate researcher.

We do know that carbon dioxide and other gases trap and re-radiate heat. We also know that humans have emitted ever-more of these gases since the Industrial Revolution. What we don’t know is exactly how sensitive the climate is to increases in these gases versus other possible factors—solar variability, oceanic currents, Pacific heating and cooling cycles, planets’ gravitational and magnetic oscillations, and so on.

Given the unknowns, it’s possible that even if we spend trillions of dollars, and forgo trillions more in future economic growth, to cut carbon emissions to pre-industrial levels, the climate will continue to change—as it always has.

That’s not to say we’re helpless. There is at least one climate lesson that we can draw from the recent weather: Whatever happens, prosperity and preparedness help. North Texas’s ice storm wreaked havoc and left hundreds of football fans stranded, cold, and angry. But thanks to modern infrastructure, 21st century health care, and stockpiles of magnesium chloride and snow plows, the storm caused no reported deaths and Dallas managed to host the big game on Sunday.

Compare that outcome to the 55 people who reportedly died of pneumonia, respiratory problems and other cold-related illnesses in Bangladesh and Nepal when temperatures dropped to just above freezing last winter. Even rich countries can be caught off guard: Witness the thousands stranded when Heathrow skimped on de-icing supplies and let five inches of snow ground flights for two days before Christmas. Britain’s GDP shrank by 0.5% in the fourth quarter of 2010, for which the Office of National Statistics mostly blames “the bad weather.”

Arguably, global warming was a factor in that case. Or at least the idea of global warming was. The London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation charges that British authorities are so committed to the notion that Britain’s future will be warmer that they have failed to plan for winter storms that have hit the country three years running.

A sliver of the billions that British taxpayers spend on trying to control their climes could have bought them more of the supplies that helped Dallas recover more quickly. And, with a fraction of that sliver of prosperity, more Bangladeshis and Nepalis could have acquired the antibiotics and respirators to survive their cold spell.

A comparison of cyclones Yasi and Nargis tells a similar story: As devastating as Yasi has been, Australia’s infrastructure, medicine, and emergency protocols meant the Category 5 storm has killed only one person so far. Australians are now mulling all the ways they could have better protected their property and economy.

But if they feel like counting their blessings, they need only look to the similar cyclone that hit the Irrawaddy Delta in 2008. Burma’s military regime hadn’t allowed for much of an economy before the cyclone, but Nargis destroyed nearly all the Delta had. Afterwards, the junta blocked foreign aid workers from delivering needed water purification and medical supplies. In the end, the government let Nargis kill more than 130,000 people.

Global-warming alarmists insist that economic activity is the problem, when the available evidence show it to be part of the solution. We may not be able to do anything about the weather, extreme or otherwise. But we can make sure we have the resources to deal with it when it comes.