October 15, 2016

Sea ice fails to disappear as climate alarmists predicted

Holly NicholasRebel Commentator
 

Yet another climate alarmist myth debunked. According to a book by Professor Peter Wadhams, sea ice was supposed to have completely disappeared by mid-decade but measurements show there was 31% more ice this year than in September 2012.

That’s an extra 1.09 million square kilometres of ice and this year, the most rapid refreeze ever recorded has occurred with the ice growing 1.05 million square kilometres in just three weeks.

We’ve been told time and again that doomsday is coming because climate is changing but the only thing these false claims really point to is that changes in climate are unpredictable and erratic.

There’s no denying that sea ice volumes have been declining since 1985, but that doesn’t mean this is a man-made phenomenon or that we should have to pay guilt taxes for it, or that we need to start over worrying.

The climate has been changing for billions of years. And if you look at the trends on the geologic time scale they took hundreds, if not thousands of years to develop.

Many scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is real but the question is how much do humans contribute to it? That’s an entirely reasonable and level headed stance.

We’re always told that the science is settled on catastrophic climate change, but in reality science is never settled and alarmist arm waving helps nothing.

It looks like we can file the sea ice claim in the discredited folder.

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-10-18 03:05:58 -0400
Carbon dioxide is an inert gas that is critical to life on this planet. Without it we would most likely not exist. So we know that too little of it is no good. We can also not say for certain, of what amount is too much. We can also say for certain that this majest planet earth was doing just fine, for a long, long time, without a tax to make it better. That is the joke in all this…….a tax will do nothing but make us poorer. And let’s not forget, we will be paying a tax on that tax in the form of gst or hst.. That is the real crime in all this!
commented 2016-10-17 11:33:32 -0400
Andrew Stephenson wrote: I no longer have a car and the freedom from collusive extortion at the pumps is quite liberating
That’s great, if you live in a large city like Toronto or Vancouver. Or a country like Luxembourg or Monaco where going any kind of distance is rare.
We live in Canada – the 2nd largest country in the world. Our culture includes camping, fishing, and travelling. Nature-tourism is a huge industry here. Trudeau/Wynne/Notley style carbon taxes are anti-Canadian.
We need a climate tax/levy policy (because the Gore/Suzuki crowd are undeniably winning the argument) unique to Canada.
How about tax-free electric cars and reduced hydro rates for their use?
How about import duties on manufactured goods, say from China where manufacturers are subsidized by means of reduced environmental standards and lack of “enviro” fees and taxes?
How about investing in enviro-technology for export to those countries that have horrible pollution issues?
Increase gasoline taxes for those in the BIG cities to reduce driving, and improve rapid transit. Allow Uber.
Increase fines for illegal dumping and other environmentally damaging actions.
Canada is NOT a country of big city condo dwellers. We need a made-in-Canada solution. Not one made in New York City or Brussels.
commented 2016-10-17 11:07:09 -0400
I wonder if Al Gore’s net worth is growing at 31% ?
commented 2016-10-17 10:47:18 -0400
“Compared to the other forces involved in heating, shaping, and weathering the Earth, we are mites on the backs of fleas. And yet we argue about how we’re steering the dog. Hubris, anyone?”
Great line Michael it shows the lunacy perfectly.

Andrew I think your ‘better safe than sorry’ line is disingenuous. You are fully aware that the entire thing is a ploy devised to manipulate popular opinion. The ‘economic’ reasons are about padding a few select pockets and ensuring a constant revenue stream for manipulative governments.

With this paragraph of Andrew’s he admits, its not really about climate change at all.
“Frankly, I’m more interested in ending our reliance on fossil fuels for more general environmental and economic reasons than anything else, and I suspect the economics of renewables (particularly solar power and electric cars) will continue to improve and render this whole debate moot 20 years down the line anyway.”

20 years is a whole different discussion which should take place……..in 20 years.
By then maybe the storage problem will be developed enough to make alternatives actually viable. Until then any widespread implementation is suicide, except of course for a select few. It is good that more people are seeing it for what it is. Some, like Andrew will still buy into it but more and more people will feel the affects and realize they are getting screwed over.
commented 2016-10-17 08:33:30 -0400
Andrew Stephenson – the relation of emissions to the fourth power is that of temperature to light emission, it’s not a re-radiation phenomenon.

If you were meaning to reference the change in spectrum from absorbed to emitted light then that is well proven science, and has been empirically tested. The incoming radiation contains many wavelengths of IR, and if the theory of greenhouse gasses is correct then the outgoing radiation will be missing the higher energy specra within that range (of the spectra that CO2 absorbs). So, downward looking satellites can check the emissions spectra to see if what came down matches what goes up. By noting the differences between those two spectra, an absorption signature can be detected and matched. And it works! The resulting map is one of the best matches yet produced to find deserts. The CO2 signal is negligible compared to that of H2O in the atmosphere. Thus proving what was “known” before, that water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas. But because you’re all about the science, you knew that already, right?

And where do the mystical positive feedbacks to CO2 concentration that have never been found in the geologic record come from? You know the ones I mean, the ones that look at a 2.5 degree increase from CO2 per doubling (over twice the empirical increase) and increase it to a 5 degree temperature increase per doubling?

Conservatives base our decisions and plans on facts. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming doesn’t even rise to the level of a theory because its proponents refuse to list falsification criteria. Weather, and climates, have always changed, When humans pave square miles of the surface and plant imported vegetation on the remaining portions, they change the local climate. That is real human induced climate change.

An earth that has had the natural range of ice sheets down to the tropics and millions of years without ice caps (and coal being formed in the arctic circle) laughs at your predictions of imminent disaster. Compared to the other forces involved in heating, shaping, and weathering the Earth, we are mites on the backs of fleas. And yet we argue about how we’re steering the dog. Hubris, anyone?
commented 2016-10-17 08:18:24 -0400
Drew Warariuk, you noted yesterday that “in recorded history…” is commonly used, but please remember whenever you say that to note that global temperatures only became measurable in 1979 with the first weather satellites, which corresponds to the lower temperature year in the un-adjusted (ground based thermometer) records for the twentieth century.
commented 2016-10-17 03:10:44 -0400
Bill Elder – Why not go find something peer-reviewed? As our ice-cap predicting friends have found out, untested hypotheses made outside the realm of peer-reviewed literature can be dangerous; why is this particular piece not in a journal somewhere, if it’s valid?

Mr Monckton’s piece (basic academic integrity demands you cite your sources, blind copy-pasting is plagiarism…) is interesting … why don’t you show us an example of a climate model where they use the re-radiation as linear rather than to to the fourth power or where this is actually something that changes the outcome of the model (vs other factors – the earth isn’t a simple black-body system and treating it as such may ignore other influences) Those other influences may be problematic – his claim that the feedback factor can’t be that high because otherwise it would run away is based on the simplistic electronic circuit model, which of course ignores the very offsets he himself invokes. Further,m he claims that doubling of atmospheric carbon would lead to less than a degree of warming, which is at direct odds with the current observations, of about 0.8 degrees already seen with only a 40% increase.

“All credible Ocean scientists recognise the levels as in static. "
Ad-populum fallacy. And, no, I’m pretty sure they don’t. Ice pack melting is also tracked through isotopic variations (O16/O18 ratios), and there has been substantial net inflow of water into the oceans in the last century or so (the proclaimed increase in ice area in Antarctica is because the glaciers are “slipping” off the continent faster than they can calve. Continental sheets are thinning, fast). That being said, the dominant force is thermal expansion.

“It is not “denial” to conclude there is not enough study to make statements like the science is settled and as such I remain open to any new findings (something the unsettled science deniers are devoid of) " Even what you’ve quoted above acknowledges it’s happening, even if it disputes the magnitude.

Frankly, I’m more interested in ending our reliance on fossil fuels for more general environmental and economic reasons than anything else, and I suspect the economics of renewables (particularly solar power and electric cars) will continue to improve and render this whole debate moot 20 years down the line anyway. Declining emissions have already been observed in some countries, including the US, due to a combination of efficiency measures and declining use of coal. I no longer have a car and the freedom from collusive extortion at the pumps is quite liberating and financially very rewarding. However, caution is still called for. Perhaps Monckton is right and it will limit to a degree or two. Perhaps he’s not and we’re all screwed. Better safe than sorry, I say.
commented 2016-10-17 02:39:31 -0400
So progressives, if the earth is doomed as you say, then sign over power of attorney to me and go off yourself.
commented 2016-10-16 22:23:54 -0400
From Bill’s post, " I can tell you with irrefutable certainty that “models” are NOT exact science – like any statistical projection beyond what is physically measurable, the opportunity for error in projections is exponential"

In other words Andrew, a small miscalculation ends up being a huge misrepresentation. The operative word is ‘exponential’. Our governments are basing policy on models which produce results that can be so far from the truth as to be completely misleading. They may as well just make up the results. There is no way I accept any ‘settled’ science. It is an oxymoron.
commented 2016-10-16 21:44:36 -0400
Andrew Stevenson continues to betray his ignorance of subject with circular arguments, ad hominems and cut and paste political hysteria. Climate science isn’t as simple as "settled or denial – this is so puerilely over simplistic it could only come from myopic special interest politics.

The real science is readjusting the “models” almost monthly as better more reliable data is added – and after the proof the algorithm used in the temp. sensitivity feed back calculation was mathematically incorrect, we now understand how the “models” were 3 deg out of sync with measured data. Models used the radiative forcing in response to a CO2 doubling of 3.7 Watts per square meter These official central estimates are exaggerated because the modelers have failed to take proper account of the exaggerated non-linearity of the temperature responses to linearly-increasing feedback sums. They have allowed that non-linearity to drag the central climate-sensitivity estimates erroneously upward by 12.5-35%. in using a fixed value for the crucial reference sensitivity parameter λ0 the climate establishment are erroneously treating the fourth-power Stefan-Boltzmann equation as though it were linear, when of course it is exponential. Notwithstanding all these mathematically correct recalculations that λ0 is below, and perhaps well below, 0.312 K W–1 m2 and is in any event not a constant, IPCC assumes this “uniform” value which is mathematically incorrect. The overstatement of the CMIP5 central estimate of climate sensitivity resulting from the combined errors identified in the feedback sensitivity formula is accordingly of order 40%. In short CO2 could double with less than a 1Deg. increase. This is no panic and within normative climate change – carbon taxing and green energy would have little or no impact in this eventuality.

Sea levels have not risen outside of normative thermal expansion/contraction parameters in 50 years denoting an arrest in ice pack melting – All credible Ocean scientists recognise the levels as in static. More hysteria was created by “models” making incredulous predictions based in poor data inputs and calculations devoid of mitigating factors. Again, model based hysteria which is good for politics and corporatism but not hard science.

FYI Andrew, I have spent a career in a tangible science called engineering – it deals with known inputs and mathematically verifiable outputs – specifically statistical process control – I can tell you with irrefutable certainty that “models” are NOT exact science – like any statistical projection beyond what is physically measurable, the opportunity for error in projections is exponential – something provable in six sigma work. The climate models has provably incorrect data sets, used incorect formulas in projecting forcing algorytims and are far from reliable.

It is not “denial” to conclude there is not enough study to make statements like the science is settled and as such I remain open to any new findings (something the unsettled science deniers are devoid of)

So climate skepticism is the normal operational mode of testing theories (which are what model graph) against evidence – and as to who is in denial is relative.
commented 2016-10-16 20:56:54 -0400
Let’s leave Canada out of the equation since we have one of the cleanest environments on earth.
Take a look at the pollution cesspools that exist in the majority of countries around the world. Toxic waste dumps, old coal fired plants spewing toxic fumes, garbage of all descriptions littering land and seascapes, total lack of emission controls. And what are we doing to help? Taxing ourselves into poverty. Why?
commented 2016-10-16 19:21:23 -0400
“Long story short, we are causing climate change.”
Such omnipotence!
We are insignificant in the scheme of things. Like fleas on a dog. The earth just shrugs and shakes us off. We might want to learn to roll with the punches the climates variables hit us with though. But the only people who think man is responsible for climate change or any warming are politicians, scientists who stretch the truth for funding, or the sheeeple who believe the codswallop out of moral vanity.
Can we say HOAX?
commented 2016-10-16 17:59:45 -0400
Andrew those same people said the ice was going away, shows how smart they are. Now keep quoting them and when that does not happen you will deflect and change the theory.
commented 2016-10-16 17:58:10 -0400
Andrew Stephenson WRONG!!!
commented 2016-10-16 16:11:08 -0400
Greenhouse gas is another invented buzz phrase…

Everybody asks the question “what is a greenhouse gas.?”

Our planet looked at properly could be considered a greenhouse because it is ultimately a closed environment with variables…
So ask the question again “what is a greenhouse gas…?”

Every gas is found in our atmosphere is in fact greenhouse gases and we need them to survive.
commented 2016-10-16 15:35:22 -0400
ANDREW STEPHENSON commented 1 hour ago
“I’ll bite. "

That was the greatest effort at spin that I’ve seen on this site… anybody in a moment of desperation has to regurgitate junk like that Because they haven’t got true arguable points…
. “milk in the water Andrew… Indeed”..
Milk clouding up water has absolutely nothing in common with the workings of CO2 in our atmosphere. Different mediums in different elements..
Nice try though.
There is no checks and balances for milk clouding up water..
CO2 on the other hand is plant food and it’s designed to be readily absorbed with enthusiasm by trees and plants and even the ocean which gives back oxygen in return.

Again Andrew your “science” is only opinion driven as you fail not only science but geology is well.

Volcanoes make a great deal of CO2 and during an irruption we couldn’t even begin to determine the massive amounts of CO2 released in that event.. There is places around the planet that coal has been burning underground for hundreds and hundreds of years nothing to do with mankind. Source “National Geographic”

And there is many other places around the planet where natural gas just seeps to the surface and burns on contact with atmosphere.
Source “national geographic”

And just massive amounts of vegetation that die’s planet wide on a daily basis adding tremendous amount of CO2 that can’t even be measured..
Source “National Geographic”

Please quit using pretend science
And release your grip on the insanity that the planet is warming because of man.. The planet warms and cools over the series of what we call “generations”
To try to measure changes in climate in less than anything than 1000 year increments is a waste of time because you would never be able to discover accurate trends or predictable cycles that would be required for accuracy claims to support climate change.
Accurate claims must be made using climate and not weather patterns like the way the alarmists like to do it now..

“Nothing on this planet is more important than mankind.”
commented 2016-10-16 15:26:51 -0400
Like I said: the likes of Andrew Stephenson and eco-freak Suzukis of this world have won.
Instead of wasting our breath arguing with them, we should direct our “carbon pricing” at imported goods from countries with lax environmental standards. Canada has FANTASTIC environmental standards and Canadians need not suffer economically, except when the price of some imported goods goes up (which in turn increases our manufacturing sector due to the carbon levy making imported goods from major polluting countries go up in price). A Win-Win scenario.
commented 2016-10-16 15:04:51 -0400
@andrew Stephenson:
“storm surges”, extreme events that may have been handled by infrastructure before, but which could overwhelm it now. It’s easy to lure yourself into a sense of complacency… but if you have a 1950 storm that missed topping the dikes by 2 inches then, and have the same storm today with sea levels four inches higher … guess what? You can of course raise the dikes, but what’s the actual cost of that relative to cutting back on carbon emissions, particularly if you achieve the latter through revenue-neutral mechanisms? "

There is zero evidence that even a 10% rise in temperature will cause storm surges. Even NASA says may, could, might? Just glass half empty BS.
commented 2016-10-16 14:19:34 -0400
“Philip Tessier commented 3 mins ago
@andrew Stephenson
“Long story short, we are causing climate change.”

To make short story long…no we are not that is just eco-leftist fear mongering."

Tell me, which specific part of my post falls into that category?
commented 2016-10-16 14:18:56 -0400
“Philip Tessier commented 21 mins ago
Andrew…you crack me up. You try and come off as intelligent but you fail miserably. You cannot convince people that there is reason to fear global warming with hundreds of meaningless words. Thanks to global warming Canada is now a decent place to live. Warmer and greener would even make me happier. Oh, by the way, my home and David Suzuki’s home on the beach keep going up in value. Neither of us are selling for fear of impending ocean rises. "

That’s good for you. Your opinion of warmer being better is just that, an opinion. You’re entitled to that. From an economic perspective, tolerating climate change is probably more expensive than mitigating it, though I think there’s some space for debate.

Sea levels are already rising, mostly due to thermal expansion. The biggest concern right now is
“storm surges”, extreme events that may have been handled by infrastructure before, but which could overwhelm it now. It’s easy to lure yourself into a sense of complacency… but if you have a 1950 storm that missed topping the dikes by 2 inches then, and have the same storm today with sea levels four inches higher … guess what? You can of course raise the dikes, but what’s the actual cost of that relative to cutting back on carbon emissions, particularly if you achieve the latter through revenue-neutral mechanisms?

You go ahead and build on the waterfront. It’s your house, not mine.
commented 2016-10-16 14:15:27 -0400
@andrew Stephenson
“Long story short, we are causing climate change.”

To make short story long…no we are not that is just eco-leftist fear mongering.
commented 2016-10-16 14:11:11 -0400
“George Luck commented 14 hours ago
There is an really easy way to make warmists go away. Ask them for actual proof that Co is a green house gas. "

I’ll bite.

There are a couple of ways of approaching this. First, we can approach this from first principles. What is a greenhouse gas? In its simplest form,a greenhouse gas is merely any gas that absorbs infrared light and converts it to thermal (vibrational or kinetic) energy. Temperature is nothing more than a measure of the average kinetic energy of molecules in a gas, so if the carbon dioxide molecule absorbs a photon of IR light, and starts vibrating, by definition its temperature increases.. That is to say, if you shine infrared light on a bottle full of a greenhouse gas, it will warm up. This is indeed the case for carbon dioxide, which absorbs very strongly at about 2300/cm (associated with “in phase”lengthen/shorten of C=O bonds), and about 650/cm (“flexing” of whole molecule – ie, if the molecule O=C=O, the carbon atom ’bounces" up and down). Simply by being an infrared absorber, it meets the most basic definition of “greenhouse gas”.

Scaling up, what does this mean for climatology? Obviously, a cloak of gas around a planet that contains infrared absorbers … will absorb some of the incident light from the Sun, and convert it to thermal energy .. warming the atmosphere. Most critically, how much is absorbed, depends on the concentration of whatever’s absorbing the infrared light. This is something called the Beer-Lambert law, which states, directly, that absorption is directly proportional to the concentration of the substance, and how well it absorbs. You can see this for yourself – put a drop of milk in a glass of water, it turns slightly cloudy. Another drop makes it cloudier, etc. As milk does to visible light in water, so does carbon dioxide to infrared in the atmosphere. Increasing carbon dioxide thus increases infrared absorption.

Now we come to the crux of the debate … if, due to increased concentrations of an absorbing substance, the atmosphere is absorbing infrared radiation that was previously being reflected into space .. where is that energy going? The key lies in the ultimate dissipation, which relies on re-readiation of lower-grade infrared from warm ground. This process is strongly dependent on temperature. If you’re absorbing more energy, then you have to re-radiate more to stay in equilibrium … which requires things to be warmer. Secondarily, some of this re-radiation is also held in by atmospheric absorption. By definition, increased infrared absoption, forces the planet to become warmer.

That’s the physical principle behind it. Now, does that actually happen?

Yes. It does. This is observed directly in several circumstances. Most obviously, Venus’s thick carbon dioxide atmosphere makes that planet hotter than airless Mercury, despite being considerably further from the sun. On Earth. we gain substantial baseline warming from our own greenhouse gases. Water is the dominant influence, but carbon dioxide and methane are also significant contributors. This has been studied ad nauseum. I will not reinvent the wheel and “prove” it directly but here’s a link to an abstract which will help you in your own studies. Unfortunately most of this was done decades ago, prior to the proliferation of open-source journals, so it is paywalled. The link is here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v344/n6266/abs/344529a0.html.

So… knowing that we already have significant greenhouse effect warming from carbon dioxide, and that basic physics tells us that the proportion of this effect is directly related to carbon dioxide concentrations, we now must realize that … carbon dioxide concentrations are in essence a planetary thermostat – increased levels warm the planet. It’s really that simple. Our observations, both directly and via proxy data from ice cores, agree with this model.

This means, then,, that human emissions are problematic from a climatic perspective. isotopic analysis indicates that the observed accumulation is geological rather than biogenic, and there’s only one source of geological carbon dioxide that is anywhere near large enough to have that effect … which is human consumption of fossil fuels.

Long story short, we are causing climate change.
commented 2016-10-16 13:50:22 -0400
Andrew…you crack me up. You try and come off as intelligent but you fail miserably. You cannot convince people that there is reason to fear global warming with hundreds of meaningless words. Thanks to global warming Canada is now a decent place to live. Warmer and greener would even make me happier. Oh, by the way, my home and David Suzuki’s home on the beach keep going up in value. Neither of us are selling for fear of impending ocean rises.
commented 2016-10-16 13:50:22 -0400
Andrew…you crack me up. You try and come off as intelligent but you fail miserably. You cannot convince people that there is reason to fear global warming with hundreds of meaningless words. Thanks to global warming Canada is now a decent place to live. Warmer and greener would even make me happier. Oh, by the way, my home and David Suzuki’s home on the beach keep going up in value. Neither of us are selling for fear of impending ocean rises.
commented 2016-10-16 13:30:56 -0400
@peter netterville:

Here’s recent paper. http://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691
Stips et al, 2016, On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature. Sci. Rep.

It contains a fairly lengthy discussion of the current science. It’s open source, and you can go to the reference section if you need further information. There are hundreds of papers going back decades, but of course you can go and pick through them yourself.

“Leviticus 2013: Everything green on this planet is designed to absorb CO2.. The reality of it is more CO2 more oxygen and plants, more plants equal more green more green should equal happier greenies.”
There is no evidence this is actually broadly occurring. It does occur in some very specific circumstances, generally in arid areas where lack of water limits the amount of time the plants can open their stoma. Note that this effect is also highly dependent on precipitation not changing – in this situation even a little change in precipitation (which directly impacts how long the plant can open its stoma and fix carbon) overshadows the changes in rates of fixation, so it’s actually quite rare to find a direct impact as there are few areas where precipitation patterns are not also changing.

“Bill Elder commented 14 hours ago
Andrew Stephenson – the only thing occurring is hysteria based in fear mongering – there is NO CRISIS.
The “science” is provably and objectively wrong based on models made with bad data and wrong math. "
Science does not operate on a prove/disprove basis. It operates on a “best model” basis – since science is a process, you’d never get anything done if you waited for unequivocal proof. Climate change is a good model. Not perfect … but the best we have. If you want to refute a theory, you can’t really just point out a “gap” and declare it disproven (if you were aware of scientific process … you’d look at the gaps as opportunities for further research, and rather than presupposing the outcome, you’d design an experiment to try and solve it ) . If you want to displace an existing model, you have to provide a better one. No “denier” has been able to do that. No, pointing out imperfections does not disprove it, and no real scientist will declare a theory invalid because they haven’t figured out everything. As the idiom goes, perfect is the enemy of good.

At this point, denialism is down to ad-ignoratiam fallacies based on non-scientific speculation found in a vanity press book. Pretty tenuous, actually.

“George Luck commented 13 hours ago
There is an really easy way to make warmists go away. Ask them for actual proof that Co is a green house gas. There isn’t any proof, in fact quite the opposite is true. In every study the observed rise in temperatures precedes the rise in Co. So in fact, one could argue that a rise of temperatures CAUSES the rise in Co”
Fossil fuels contain a certain isotopic footprint, that differs substantially from “natural” carbon dioxide. We can actually trace the movement of fossil fuel derived carbon through the atmosphere/biosphere with a high degree of precision – allowing us to determine not only that fossil fuel use is responsible for atmospheric carbon dioxide accumulation … but that same fingerprint is showing up in dissolved ocean carbonate/bicarbonates telling us that its’ also causing the observed ocean acidification. That was one of the first questions asked, back when they first noticed carbon dioxide accumulating a century ago, and it’s been long answered. Carbon dioxide leads, rather than follows, climate.
commented 2016-10-16 11:18:50 -0400
Andrew Stephenson bold blurts out, “Then ignore the hysteria and go read the actual science, which is far less hysterical but which still concludes, with a high degree of certainty, that it’s occurring.”

Please show us the “real” science, Andy!

We are all waiting to see your “real” scientific proof. And please, no "173.14159% of all scientists agree … " bs, okay?
commented 2016-10-16 09:21:18 -0400
it wasn’t an increase in carbon-dioxide that caused the River Thames to stay ice free
commented 2016-10-16 07:11:19 -0400
The climate change has shown the stupidity of people. Those believing it is possible to predict weather on the records kept over the last 200 years of records, begs the question “How long have their forefathers been walking upright”. Relate this to studying the ocean depths by examining the top 1mm. The world is 4.5 billion years old. Divide that by the 200 years we have been recording the weather and you get 22.5 million. Divide one by the 22.5 million and you get a minute fraction of the time we have been aware of the importance of following the weather. The Myans have been studying the weather for 30,000 years. If not for the Pope ordering the Spanish to destroy their records, we may well know what is really going to happen.

Recent Myan discoveries of their temples, show that some were covered with silt that could only have been deposited by the temple being covered with water. These sites are hundreds of kilometers inland. Mother earth heals herself in many ways. I believe in the Myan predictions which have only been decoding in the last 3 decades. (The result of the Myans using hieroglyphics and an alphabet confused the researchers.) The Myans predicted weather patterns change every short year which for them meant 5,125 of our years. That is one fifth of the long year which begins and ends when all the planets line up around the sun in a straight line. That is what we now call a galactic year which is 25,625 of our years. The last ended and began on December 21, 2012.

When the Green Party knocks on my door and tells me it has been over 5,000 years since the snow last melted on Mount Kilimanjaro, I immediately asked what happen then that caused the snow to melt. As they say in that statement, the climate then was exactly what it was when the snow melted on Mount Kilimanjaro back in 2010 or 2011. If someone has discovered that water melted and froze at a different temperature back than, I have yet to hear about.

It is time to stop the tax grab in the name of science. After all, it will never be used to cure global warming.
commented 2016-10-16 05:45:28 -0400
Who cares?? Al Gore has already made his $300B from this climate bullshit – he’s laughing at the world.

Just like that shit bag suzuki – career CBC turd and national bullshit artist – made a fortune sell fraud.