http://www.holoscience.com/new.....e=8gfbewe7

Excerpt:

Global Warming in a Climate of Ignorance

“As for the promised control of nature, it is in rout before nature unleashed.”

-Jacques Barzun, Science: the glorious entertainment

“Next we come to a question that everyone, scientist and non-scientist alike, must have asked at some time. What is man’s place in the Universe?”

-Fred Hoyle, The Nature of the Universe

Global warming has been deemed a fact. However, the inconvenient truth is that humans are not causing it. Al Gore has been given poor advice. Like Darwin’s theory of evolution and Big Bang cosmology, global warming by greenhouse gas emissions has undergone that curious social process in which a scientific theory is promoted to a secular myth. When in fact, science is ignorant about the source of the heat — the Sun.

The really inconvenient truth is that we cannot control Nature. But we can begin to learn our true place in the Universe and figure out how to cope rationally with inevitable change. Clearly, reducing air pollution is an admirable goal in itself. But we must not be deluded into thinking it will affect climate significantly. The connection between warming and atmospheric pollution is more asserted than demonstrated, while the connection with variations in the Sun has been demonstrated.

The Sun is undergoing a power surge

If you can’t explain what started the rise in temperatures back then, then why should anyone take any predictions that are made seriously? And, if you want to make the claim that “whatever the causes were back then, the problem now is that man-made CO2 is making things worse”, well, this assertion also runs into the problem that temperature increase has MODERATED since the rise of man-made CO2. The logical conclusion from all of this is that if GW is taking place, it is NOT of man-made origins, nor is it being accelerated by man-made causes–perhaps the reverse. But, of course, if there is “consensus”, what need do we have of being ‘logical’?

Maybe we should be worried about Global Cooling, as they were in the early 70′s.

CO2 Science

Very high concentrations of atmospheric CO2 can produce a state of hypercapnia or an excessive amount of CO2 in the blood (Nahas et al., 1968; Brackett et al., 1969; van Ypersele de Strihou, 1974), which typically results in acidosis, a serious and sometimes fatal condition characterized in humans by headache, nausea and visual disturbances (Poyart and Nahas, 1968; Turino et al., 1974). However, these phenomena do not impact human health until the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration reaches approximately 15,000 ppm (Luft et al., 1974; Schaefer, 1982), which is approximately 40 times greater than its current concentration. Hence, we do not have to worry about any direct negative health effects of the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content.

Lots’ more good stuff in the article about the BENEFITS of rising CO2 but I just wanted to point out I was correct that C02 emissions are not a “pollutant”. Chlorofluorocarbons, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, soot, ash, and a whole boatload of other things that result from the combustion of fossil fuels are pollutants but CO2 is not one of those many things. Sorry Zach. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas too, Zach, but like CO2 it isn’t a pollutant.

And would somebody PLEASE teach those poor fools something to help them know the difference between absolute humidity, relative humidity, dewpoint, and precipitation? One poor ignorant soul is waving around an absolute humidity chart like it proves that cold air is drier than warm air.

Maybe if we ask him what happens when you warm up foggy air – does it get “wetter” or “drier”? When you can explain your answer you’ll stop waving that chart around and your ignorant comrades will stop applauding you for it. The saddest thing is there must be people who post on ATBC who know it’s wrong but they won’t point it out.

Whatever the underlying causes of the El Nino effect they are clearly quite different from anything to do with CO2. The effect is quite distinctive, quite unusual, lasts for one or two years at the most. The fact that we cannot explain how it starts does not mean that we do not understand the longer term sustained effect of CO2. Just as we might not be able to explain why every so often traffic levels shot up for a day or two – but we could still confidently explain why they are increasing overall in the long term.

I am going to drop out of this now. There are many sceptics who know a bit about the subject and I respect them – you will find them on Climate Audit.

The pollution credits are fine but C02 isn’t a pollutant. It isn’t harmful to health unless it becomes such a large percentage of what you’re breathing there’s not enough oxygen left which is something that doesn’t happen from manmade emissions. For carbon monoxide and sulfates it’s an excellent idea.

Why am I so convinced that C02 isn’t a problem? Because without knowing enough about the climate the odds are equal that manmade CO2 emission is beneficial. The earth is overdue for an ice age. As far as I know C02 is helping keep the glaciers at bay. Equal likelyhood of harm and good cancels out and you end up with a non-issue where the only way to change that is less hand-waving jumps to conclusions and more cool headed analysis. Furthermore, who says warming is a problem? I’ve got plenty of friends in upstate New York where I grew up that would be pleased as punch if they saw snow only as often as they see snow in Georgia. I bet Canadians would really enjoy having much of their country turn into lush farmland with a long growing season. The “harm” from global warming is subjective. In the past the earth exploded with life during the warmest epochs and conversely life was muted in cold epochs. As far as I’m concerned warming is net beneficial compared to cooling.

Even further, a well known benefit of C02 is increased crop production. Given sufficient light, water, and fertile soil, C02 becomes the limiting factor in plant growth rates. What a fine kettle of fish if manmade CO2 emission is both putting more fresh water into the ecosphere, extending growing seasons, opening up vast tracts of frozen northern and southern latitudes to farming, and increasing plant growth rates by raising atmospheric C02, helping to feed a growing population, and we then spend inordinate amounts of resources to halt this increasing capacity to grow crops. Talk about boneheaded. The environmentalist whackos could actually be giving out a prescription for mass starvation in the future. And to add insult to injury it’s these same people who caused nuclear power plants to be so expensive to build that we didn’t and now we have more dirty coal fired plants spewing out pollutants and greenhouse gases. These chuckleheads actually don’t know whether they’re coming or going. They’re driven by fashion and passion and politics not rationality and science. Boneheads all.

cold air is usually a lot drier than warm air

No Mike, it isn’t. It’s just as close or far from saturation as air of any other temperature. That’s why you have deserts in the hottest parts of the world. You have a layman’s understanding of what wet and dry air are which is why you are so lost when it comes to understanding climate.

I didn’t say sea ice was growing thicker. I said it was increasing. I thought you’d infer increasing in extent from the context of using it as a rebuttal to increasing thickness of ice on the land. Antarctic sea ice is increasing in extent.

Also, in comment 15 I asked that everyone have a look at the interactive tropospheric temperature anomaly chart and click backwards through time while watching it. If you’d done that you’d have noticed that antarctica is shown more in blue (cooling) than in red (heating) and the ocean surrounding it is even more often colored blue.

And guess when the times of exceptional heating occur? Give yourself a gold star if you say any spanish words with male gender like El Nino.

Global warming, if any, isn’t due to manmade C02. I suspect a real culprit is manmade CFCs. First of all CFCs are powerful greenhouse gases (vs. a weak gas like CO2) and secondly they destroy stratospheric ozone which normally acts to stop a lot of energy (UV wavelengths) from reaching the lower atomosphere. We’ve already stopped pumping those into the atmosphere and guess what, right around when you’d expect to see some effect by golly there it is. And where would the effect be the greatest? At the poles where those large and growing ozone holes used to be. Near the equator where the ozone layer wasn’t so effected you can see by browsing that intractive tropospheric temperature map that it is almost always a lovely shade of blue except when there’s an El Nino. Global warming (if it is indeed warming) is regional. Parts of the globe are cooling. I’m unconvinced that the net of all warming and cooling is more heat energy in the atmosphere. This all appears to be just normal fluctuations well within the range of natural phenomena. Until we know more it’s STUPID to start throwing money at a problem that may not be a problem at all but could be beneficial. Unlike global warming and CO2, which connection is unestablished, we know for a fact that increased CO2 increases crop yields which is a GOOD thing.

Take the blinders off and start acting like a scientist. You’ve got the credentials but you’re still missing the most important element – constantly questioning data and conclusions presented by others.

“Too cold to snow” is, as I originally said, a cliche with a grain of truth. I did not say that it was true, and I did not say that it was completely accurate. It contains a grain of truth because cold air is usually a lot drier than warm air.

I brought that up in the first place because I thought you were talking about the increases in ice volume that have been observed in the contintenal ice volume over Antartica. If you are talking about the increases in sea ice cover in the Southern Ocean, a study published a year and a half ago demonstrated that increased precipitation in the Southern Ocean can cause increased sea ice volume.

NASA Earth Observatory

Typically, warming of the climate leads to increased melting rates of sea ice cover and increased precipitation rates. However, in the Southern Ocean, with increased precipitation rates and deeper snow, the additional load of snow becomes so heavy that it pushes the Antarctic sea ice below sea level. This results in even more and even thicker sea ice when the snow refreezes as more ice. Therefore, the paper indicates that some climate processes, like warmer air temperatures increasing the amount of sea ice, may go against what we would normally believe would occur.

The “what” that I’m getting at is this: when Dave Scot pointed out a large incease in temperature during 93-93, your response was that that was an El Nino year. I then asked for the causes of El Nino since it appears that whatever is driving El Nino is a sizable source of global warming. But, as Wikipedia makes clear, we don’t know the source of El Nino. The conclusion then is that we shouldn’t be so sure we know what is causing GW if we can’t even explain El Nino with its sizable heating effect. Bottom line: there is tremendous deficiencies in what climatologists know about GW and about its causes–yet that is not what we read about.

From someone who has spent a few months in Antarctica, I never saw it snow very much there though it was frequently overcast with some high winds. I was only there during the height of the austral summer.

There was book written about it called “Desert without Sand.” We were told it was the dryest place on earth and that the average snowfall for the entire continent was about an inch a year and that the massive ice shelf was the result of this small precipitation never melting over tens of thousands of years.

There are valleys not in the path of the main glaciers which are called dry valleys which did look like desert and with no visible precipitation except for a glacier here and there peaking over the mountain passes.

This was several years ago and the science may have advanced so that there are new theories about everything including the precipitation levels and my experience is mostly that of the area around McMurdo on Ross Island. At McMurdo one of the main problems was melting as during the summer it gets slightly above freezing there and much becomes a quagmire.