Global Warming Today: Warm Trend Ending?

Yet another scientist coming out against anthropogenic climate change, and even going further.

(Oleg Sorokhtin for RIA Novosti) – Stock up on fur coats and felt boots! This is my paradoxical advice to the warm world.

Earth is now at the peak of one of its passing warm spells. It started in the 17th century when there was no industrial influence on the climate to speak of and no such thing as the hothouse effect. The current warming is evidently a natural process and utterly independent of hothouse gases.

The real reasons for climate changes are uneven solar radiation, terrestrial precession (that is, axis gyration), instability of oceanic currents, regular salinity fluctuations of the Arctic Ocean surface waters, etc. There is another, principal reason—solar activity and luminosity. The greater they are the warmer is our climate.

Astrophysics knows two solar activity cycles, of 11 and 200 years. Both are caused by changes in the radius and area of the irradiating solar surface. The latest data, obtained by Habibullah Abdusamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory space research laboratory, say that Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.

This is my point, which environmentalists hotly dispute as they cling to the hothouse theory. As we know, hothouse gases, in particular, nitrogen peroxide, warm up the atmosphere by keeping heat close to the ground. Advanced in the late 19th century by Svante A. Arrhenius, a Swedish physical chemist and Nobel Prize winner, this theory is taken for granted to this day and has not undergone any serious check.

No need to add anything. Of course, he will be called a dupe and in the pay of the Vast Oil Lobby in ad hominum attacks, rather then anyone looking at the science or listening to his point of view.

Read the rest, which includes those funny scientific words that are typically left out of the essays the climahysterics write.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

10 Responses to “Global Warming Today: Warm Trend Ending?”

  1. […] global warming being not just a reality but a man-made reality. Now that I’ve pissed off all the climate change sceptics, I can go ahead and write about the possible consequences we might face while they compose angry […]

  2. John Ryan says:

    145 mph hurricane winds in CA ???
    No nothing unusual happening here
    No, really, nothing to be alarmed at a scientist said so.

  3. Actually, no, it is not unusual. It is rare, but it does happen. Go take a look around the Internet and you will see that some of the highest winds are in fact on the west coast in the mountains during winter and spring. You will find many examples of those winds, due to the strength of storms coming off the Pacific and then flowing across the land and up into the mountains, where the cool lower air is then forced up to meet the cold upper air.

  4. Silke says:

    According to your article, Teach, the intensity of hurricanes and other large storms is affected by carbon dioxide concentration.

    Hence we get hurricanes, storms, tornados and other natural disasters, whose intensity largely depends on carbon dioxide concentration.

    The article also states the Earth will start cooling by 2012. Do you agree with this?

  5. It’s a possibility, Silke. I tend to think that we are going to go thru short alternating warmer and cooler periods for awhile, as we have since the end of the Little Ice Age. Then, again, we may be in for a sustained warmer period. Only time will tell. Climate is a very complicated thing.

    But, hey, the Sun could decide to go thru a huge, long, non-active phase tomorrow, and we could have a glaciacion. No one really truly knows in full.

  6. Silke says:

    I wonder why this 17-paragraph magazine article (with no supporting data) is more persuasive to you than this 14-page study published in a peer reviewed scientific journal.

    For a while I thought your arguments were getting better but it looks like you are back to your old methods again – incorrectly quoting the IPCC and using non-peer reviewed/unsubstantiated assertions from magazine articles.

  7. Who said I took the word as gospel? I’m just posting it for information. I will read all sides, which is why I say that the climate is getting warmer at this time. I just disagree with the Man as primary or sole cause people (particularly since most of them refuse to live the life they espouse for others.)

    It’s funny, though, because peer reviewed articles that say Man is not at fault are poo poo’d and attacked ad hominum. Why is that?

    Why is it that all these articles out there ignore billions of years of history in favor of Man being the sole or primary culprit? Why do the goal posts keep changing? The time when global warming supposedly started keeps changing.

    And, yes, for the most part, I think the IPCC is a bunch of trash, based more on beauracratic wishes then actual science. If it was actually interested in the reality, it would mention Earth processes, you know, those things that have gone on for billions of years. If they were actually honest, they would live the life they want everyone else to live, but, not, like yourself, they do not.

  8. Silke says:

    Teach said: It’s funny, though, because peer reviewed articles that say Man is not at fault are poo poo’d and attacked ad hominum. Why is that?

    No scientist should be personally attacked for presenting their evidence. However you have yet to actually provide any of that peer-reviewed evidence and if ad hominem attacks are an indicator of the weakness of one’s own argument maybe you should take a look at your own blog.

    Teach said: If it was actually interested in the reality, it would mention Earth processes, you know, those things that have gone on for billions of years.

    It does and in great detail. In fact there’s an entire chapter devoted just to the palaeoclimate (Chapter 6). Here’s the link, in case you are interested:

    The fact that you don’t know this and the fact that you continue to misquote the IPCC seriously damages your credibility on this subject. You can’t argue against something you haven’t bothered to read.

  9. Ya know, I was going to ignore your comment, but, na. I find it laughable that you of all people should question my credibility. Like most of the rest of the climahysterics, you whine on and on about the danger of man made global warming, yet, you do nothing yourself to stop it. You say “I can’t afford it.” You, like the rest, want everyone else to fuck up their lifestyles, but, somehow, you think you should have an exemption.

    Quite frankly, the who man as the cause of global warming movement is complete and utter bullshit. If you really believed that Man was the cause, you would get your ass in gear and actually modify your lifestyle. But you don’t.

    Tell you what: go buy the book “The Live Earth Global Warming Survival Handbook: 77 Essential Skills To Stop Climate Change” or borrow it at the library. When you are following the majority of the skills, let me know. Then you might have some credibility.

  10. Silke says:

    I’m sorry you decided to respond with an ad hominem attack despite condemning that same approach earlier.

    I wish you had commented on the substance of my last statement. The fact is the IPCC does discuss the “billions of years of history” you say it ignores and you continue to cite non-peer-reviewed articles to support your own view.

    Thanks for the tip on the book. I will definitely look it up.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9988 access attempts in the last 7 days.