Global Warming Not Affecting Chicago?

The central thesis of global warming theory is that as concentrations of atmospheric CO₂ rise then so does global temperature. Unfortunately for Al Gore and the AGW alarmist crowd, global temperatures have remained steady or have been declining since 2003 despite the fact that CO₂ concentrations have been rising (thanks to the industrial efforts of China and India whom the leftists want to exempt from any type of carbon restrictions).

The city of Chicago is feeling the effects of this period of Global Cooling:

The cloudy, chilly and rainy open to June here has been the talk of the town. So far this June is running more than 12 degrees cooler than last year, and the clouds, rain and chilly lake winds have been persistent. The average temperature at O'Hare International Airport through Friday has been only 59.5 degrees: nearly 7 degrees below normal and the coldest since records there began 50 years ago.

If the Global Warming alarmists were correct, temperatures should have gone up, not down. That would be true for the temperature in the Great Lakes as well as in the atmosphere.

Global Warming theory has once again failed it own test.

You can access the complete entry on-line here:

So Far, June's Chill Is One For The Records
Steve Kahn
WGN Weather Center
June 12, 2009

NASA Acknowledges 'Deep Solar Minimum'

It is true that most Americans no longer believe in Anthroprogenic (Man-made) Global Warming. Why? Mostly because of the harsh winter that we just endured and the unusually cool spring we are looking at right now. If greenhouse gas emissions are supposed to make temperatures go up, then why are temperatures going down? That is what people are asking.

But these observations may be showing us just the beginning of things to come. Most legitimate scientists (i.e. those scientists who are not on someone's political payroll) are coming to the conclusion that climate change, whether it be warming or cooling, is driven by our sun. NASA has recently lent it's support to that position by acknowledging the possibility of a "deep solar minimum."

What that means is that our sun has slipped into a period of decreased activity and decreased solar energy output.

From Science@NASA:

The sunspot cycle is behaving a little like the stock market. Just when you think it has hit bottom, it goes even lower. 2008 was a bear. There were no sunspots observed on 266 of the year's 366 days (73%). To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days: plot. Prompted by these numbers, some observers suggested that the solar cycle had hit bottom in 2008. Maybe not. Sunspot counts for 2009 have dropped even lower. As of March 31st, there were no sunspots on 78 of the year's 90 days (87%). It adds up to one inescapable conclusion: "We're experiencing a very deep solar minimum," says solar physicist Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center. "This is the quietest sun we've seen in almost a century," agrees sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center.

And to show what that means graphically:



Sunspot counts are clearly at a minimum and that means decreased solar energy output as evidenced by the solar irradiance measurement:



NASA scientists admit that they do not know what will happen next. But it is clear that the sunspot cycle and the solar irradience cycle are more closely tied to global temperature change than any greenhouse gas emissions are. We know this because thanks to the efforts of China and India, greenhouse gas emissions have increased over the years, but global temperature has gone down, not up.

Other effects:

A 50-year low in solar wind pressure: Measurements by the Ulysses spacecraft reveal a 20% drop in solar wind pressure since the mid-1990s—the lowest point since such measurements began in the 1960s. The solar wind helps keep galactic cosmic rays out of the inner solar system. With the solar wind flagging, more cosmic rays are permitted to enter, resulting in increased health hazards for astronauts. Weaker solar wind also means fewer geomagnetic storms and auroras on Earth. A 12-year low in solar "irradiance": Careful measurements by several NASA spacecraft show that the sun's brightness has dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996. The changes so far are not enough to reverse the course of global warming, but there are some other significant side-effects: Earth's upper atmosphere is heated less by the sun and it is therefore less "puffed up." Satellites in low Earth orbit experience less atmospheric drag, extending their operational lifetimes. Unfortunately, space junk also remains longer in Earth orbit, increasing hazards to spacecraft and satellites.

Also, if those sunspots don't return and solar energy output does not increase, we will be in for some very cold times ahead.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Deep Solar Minimum
Dr. Tony Phillips
Science@NASA
April 1, 2009

Both The Remote Sensing Systems Of Santa Rosa And University Of Alabama (Huntsville) Dataset Show Temperature Going Down

See the two above graphs? They both show that the earth has been in a cyclical cooling trend for the past several years. Although no one can accurately predict what the trends will be for the years to come, both of the data representations show that all of the hype about the world coming to an end because of man-made "greenhouse" gases is nothing more than ... well ... a bunch of hype.

Greenhouse gas theory holds that as greenhouse gas emissions increase, global temperatures go up. Since 2000, greenhouse gas emissions have indeed gone up thanks to China and India, but as the data shows, temperatures have gone down. The theory has failed its own major test.

Also note the UAH graph has detail explanations with regards to certain outlier events (the eruption of Mount Pinatubo and the cycling of El Nino) in addition to a fourth-order polynomial fit to show what the trends are. No global warming alarmist would ever mention such natural causes nor such contrary evidence in any of their arguments.

Global Warming Lies Create A Climate Of Crisis

So, now that Al Gore has won a Nobel Prize for his work based on junk science, what will furture generations think of us when they look back and see how all of the Al Gore types ran around like Chicken Little and they were honored for it?

Alan Caruba asks that question and a few others in his latest column dealing with Global Warming. Here is an excerpt:

The United Nations conference in Bali, attended by some 10,000 participants and observers, is likely to make future generations conclude that ours was deranged to be discussing how humans could have any affect whatever on the climate. They will, in retrospect, agree that the global warming theory was a lie whose agenda was to retard anything that might extend and enhance life on earth. The Protocol is based entirely on a lie that predicts dramatic and imminent global warming. Global warmers insist that carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced, but carbon dioxide does not cause climate change. Climatologists will tell you that any rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not precede, but follows warming cycles.

That's right. How many GW alarmists have ever allowed anyone to even mention the Medieval Warming Period when global temperatures were even warmer than they are today?

[Note: Global Warming alarmists tried to discredit the Midieval Warming Period based on a November 2006 report from the National Oceanographic & Atmospheric Administration, but that report itself was debunked when NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies revamped their temperature measurements in August of 2007.]

However, Caruba goes on and addresses the impact of the Kyoto Protocol on regional economies:

A November 30 Bloomberg News article by Kristian Rix and Mathew Carr reported that Japan, Spain, and Italy face as much as $33 billion in fines as the result of having agreed to reduce so-called “greenhouse gas” emissions and failed. These three nations are deemed the “worst performers among 36 nations that agreed to curb carbon dioxide gases that cause climate change.” Among the nations exempt from the Kyoto Protocol are China and India, both of whom represent two of the six billion people on planet Earth. The idea that limits on carbon dioxide emissions could be achieved without their participation is idiotic. ... Consider now how many schools, hospitals, bridges, roads, and other benefits to their citizens that $33 billion represents to Japan, Spain, and Italy. Such fines will be transferred to the coffers of the United Nations for having failed to curb CO2 emissions that are actually a benefit to the Earth! An entirely bogus system of “carbon credits” has been created to transfer huge amounts of money from industrialized nations accused of producing too much CO2 to those nations that, for lack of development—failed economies—will garner funding as they “sell” their excess credits. The same system would allow various industries to sell the same worthless credits to those—primarily producers and users of energy—deemed to be major CO2 “polluters.” Even though the U.S. Supreme Court has fallen prey to the lie that CO2 represents a form of “pollution” and should be regulated, the known science renders this decision an egregious juridical error The Earth, over billions of years, has gone through cycles of warming and cooling that are well established. It has gone through periods when the CO2 content in the atmosphere was far higher than today. The latest cooling period is called the mini-ice age and lasted from around 1300 to 1850. The Earth has been warming naturally since then. There is no dramatic warming occurring. Predictions of this are based on totally flawed computer models, none of which can begin to approximate the sheer chaos and complexity of the Earth’s weather system.

And a very important question, as Caruba asks, is: What would that $33 billion in fines have meant to the people of the nations being forced to pay them? Further, what exactly is the United Nations going to do with it? (This scheme conjures up memories of the Iraqi Oil-For-Food Scandal that made so many UN bureaucrats rich at the expense of Iraqi children.)

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Global Warming Lies Create A Climate Of Crisis
Alan Caruba
Canada Free Press
December 10, 2007