Apparently, several global warming "fans" at the National Hurricane Center have been "naming" storms that aren't storms. This is an apparent ploy to inflate the number of storms and hurricanes that occur - in support of a global warming hypothesis.

"Some meteorologists, including former hurricane center director Neil Frank, say as many as six of this year's 14 named tropical systems might have failed in earlier decades to earn "named storm" status."

"They seem to be naming storms a lot more than they used to," said Frank, who directed the hurricane center from 1974 to 1987 and is now chief meteorologist for KHOU-TV. "This year, I would put at least four storms in a very questionable category, and maybe even six."

"Most of the storms in question briefly had tropical storm-force winds of at least 39 mph. But their central pressure — another measure of intensity — suggested they actually remained depressions or were non-tropical systems."

39 Mph winds makes a hurricane or tropical storm? It does now - and THAT IS WHY the count has gone way up. It isn't global warming, it's the counting method that has changed.

Click HERE for the story

As the sun (and Earth) drift through the local interstellar medium, it encounters varying concentrations of dust, gas, and debris... Scientists have been able to map out (in a general manner ) the relative densities of the gas and dust out past several hundred light years in all directions. "Bubbles" of lesser density gas/dust have been discovered and it's known that these bubbles are formed from an outward pressure - in many cases, the pressure from local supernovae. Similar bubbles have been found in other regions filled with large, hot stars emitting copious amounts of energy.

Reference the diagram below (from Sky and Telescope March 2007). Even though our sun is in a lesser density area, it still passes through large amounts of galactic dust clouds. For comparison, you'll note that the Pleiades bubble is also a lower concentration of interstellar material. Yet, it's filled with dust streamers. To see the picture, click HERE.

As our solar system passes through the streamers of dust and gas that exist (everywhere) throughout our galaxy, the changes in the density will have significant influences on the amount of radiation (from outside the solar system) and the amount of sunlight that falls on the Earth's surface. This in turn impacts our environment and climate in ways we haven't ever accounted for or even knew existed until recently. Without doubt, none of this has been accounted for in any climate modeling yet the impacts are significant.

From: SKY AND TELESCOPE, April, 1977

How has the earth's atmosphere changed in chemical composition during geologic time? How have these changes affected our planet's ability to support life? A glimpse into what might have taken place is provided by a computer simulation of the atmosphere's evolution during the last 4*/2 billion years, conducted by Michael H. Hart of Goddard Space Flight Center. He reported his results at the January meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Honolulu, Hawaii.

Initially he assumes that any primordial atmosphere of the earth must have es¬caped into space quickly after formation, and that the constituents of the present atmosphere came from the outgassing of our planet's interior.



The diagram at right shows schematically the main ways in which constituents can enter the atmosphere and be removed from it. The geochemical processes that determine the course of atmospheric evolution are complex and interact in an
made specific allowance for these factors (among others): the rate of outgassing from the interior, condensation of water vapor into oceans, solution of atmospheric gases in seawater, photodissociation of water vapor in the upper atmosphere, escape of hydrogen into space, chemical reactions between gases, the effects of life, trapping of carbon dioxide in carbonate minerals, and the burial of organic sediments.

The computer simulation was repeated many times, beginning with different pro¬portions of carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen in the gases from the earth's interior. All atmospheric argon was assumed to come from the radioactive decay of potassium -40. For successive intervals of 2,500,000 years, the computer calculated the amount of each element added or lost from the atmosphere and ocean, and at the end of each step determined the mass of the oceans, mass and composition of the atmosphere, and other data.

The diagram at the very top shows the changing composition of the atmosphere, starting with the mix of volatiles that eventually yielded the best match to the present values. Because most of the water vapor quickly condensed to form oceans, the early atmosphere was largely carbon dioxide, which was rapidly depleted by reactions with silicate rocks. Consequently, from about 4.3 to 1.9 billion years ago the main constituents of air were methane and other reduced carbon compounds,
At first, oxygen was released from the photodissociation of water vapor, and beginning some 3.7 billion years ago also by the photosynthesis of plants. Methane was gradually eliminated by combustion with this oxygen, and since then nitrogen has been the principal constituent of the air.
Roughly 420 million years ago, the amounts of oxygen and therefore of ozone became great enough to reduce the ultraviolet radiation reaching the earth's surface to a level tolerable for living organisms. The ensuing expansion of plant life caused a rapid increase in the abundance of atmospheric free oxygen.
Perhaps the most significant result of the computer simulation has been to trace the long-term variations in the earth's effective and mean surface temperatures. The difference between the two temperature curves in the diagram at the bottom of page 266 is due to the greenhouse effect, which was large during the first 2'/2 billion years, because of the abundance of carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, and ammonia. The high surface temperature caused much water to evaporate, leading to a cloud-veiled Earth.

Then, as methane and other reduced gases oxidized away, the greenhouse effect declined sharply and the mean surface temperature dropped. By two billion years ago, substantial polar ice caps had formed.

"The evolutionary process is very sensitive to the earth-sun distance," says Dr. Hart. "Had the earth been situated slightly closer to the sun, a runaway greenhouse effect would have occurred fairly early in the earth's history (a result obtained by S. I. Rasool and C. de Bergh in 1970). Had the earth's orbit been slightly larger instead, then runaway glaciation would have occurred about two billion years ago."

Interstellar matter is not distributed uniformly throughout our galaxy, but is slightly concentrated in regions behind the density wave that rotates around the galac­tic center and sweeps past the sun at intervals of roughly 100 million years, triggering star formation and the appear­ance of spiral arms. Recently, Raymond J. Talbot, Jr., of Rice University and his associates Michael J. Newman and Dixon M. Butler have examined the effects that would occur if the sun encountered a dense interstellar cloud of atoms, mole­cules, and dust.

Their calculations indicate that a star similar to the sun and lying in the galactic plane would, during its lifetime, likely pass through about 135 clouds having densities greater than the equivalent of 100 hydrogen atoms per cubic centimeter and about 16 clouds that are at least 10 times denser.

One effect of such an encounter on the sun itself would be to modify the flow of the solar wind. For example, at a relative velocity of 20 kilometers per second, a cloud denser than 100 hydrogen atoms per cubic centimeter would compress the solar wind to within the earth's orbit on the side of the sun facing the approaching cloud. This would fully expose the earth to galactic cosmic rays for at least part of the year, possibly resulting in modification of the terrestrial climate.

At higher densities, the cloud could overcome the solar wind altogether, forc­ing the particles back onto the sun and allowing material to fall in after them. During its lifetime, the sun may have accreted about 0.0001 solar mass or more from the interstellar medium in this way. The gravitational energy released during accretion would enhance the sun's lumi­nosity, especially at ultraviolet and X-ray
wavelengths. A sustained increase equiva­lent to one percent of the sun's total radiation would produce a significant change in climate and hazards to life.

The accretion of interstellar matter would also likely enrich the solar surface with heavy elements. Thus, the abun­dance of these elements observed today may be greater than that in the solar interior. If so, the rate of high-energy neutrino emission at the sun's center could be significantly lower than predicted by conventional models, thereby reducing the discrepancy between theory and recent observations (see sky and telescope for November, 1976, page 324).

The planets would also be directly af­fected by a dense interstellar cloud. For example, an encounter with a cloud would considerably enrich the hydrogen in the earth's atmosphere, replenishing about 25 percent of that lost by leakage since the previous encounter. Helium, other ele­ments, and substantial amounts of dust would also be added.

This news note is based largely on two papers in Nature for August 12, 1976, and talks given in January at the American Astronomical Society's Division for Plane­tary Sciences meeting in Honolulu.

(Reprinted without permission. Source: Sky and Telescope, September 1977)

Nice locations, nice conditions, nice hot surfaces...
Pictures courtesy of USHCN-Boulder.

Breaking through the wall of ignorance and hysteria, meteorologists and climatologists are finding that the measuring stations (those used to measure the temperatures that supposedly point to global warming) are sadly deteriorated, yielding incorrect results, uncalibrated, and place in the wrong locations to measure temperature correctly.

As a result, a survey of measuring stations has begun (click here) by UCAR (click HERE) of Boulder. At this time, 34.5% of the stations have been surveyed. What they found is AMAZING to say the least... in many cases, the application of new latex paint on the stations has falsely raised the interior temperatures of the measuring devices. This is yielding higher temperature readings in the equipment than what really exists. A slide-show presenting the findings is available from UCAR (click HERE for the slide-show).

What does this mean? It means that "dire global warming predictions are based on bad science from the very start", says Anthony Watts from NASA, and UCAR. Click HERE for the article.

OK, for those wondering, HERE is the Wiki explabnation for the Scientific Method. I will highlight specific key elements of the explanation for you to make it easy...

(From the Wikipedia):

Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] The scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to predict dependably any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so it is available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

This is NOT consensus. Dopes!

Dr. James Morison, of the University of Washington's Polar Science Center, has discovered that the apparent shrinkage of the northern polar caps we see at the moment is a cyclic event. NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab has confirmed that the changes we see are not a result of man-made global warming but are in fact "the result of natural ocean circulation patterns. A team of scientists used satellite and deep-sea pressure gauge data to monitor ocean patterns".

Global Warming nutcases have been using the changes in the arctic icecap as the prime proof of the dangerous effects of man-made global warming.

Says team leader James Morison of the University of Washington's Polar Science Center — "Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming."


Click HERE for the story DIRECTLY FROM JPL.

As expected, I do receive emails, on occasion, from rabid individuals chastising me for my lack of nobility and insensitivity. I am the heretic, the evil one, the devil - because I have a BLOG site that doesn't "agree" with the quasi-religious global warming fascists. This is exactly what is expected from the followers of High Priest Al Gore. There is no truth but their truth... how pitiful, how sad. I guess the book burnings and thought police are going to arrive soon...

Recently, a fellow named Ross (cute pseudonym) emailed me to explain how wrong I was to "question" global warming. A rather nasty email - but completely expected. It's not the first and certainly won't be the last. Reason? I can answer that. It's because this "issue" has become "personal" to the Gorians... it's their new religion. Al will save the world, and they're going to help! Heil! Heil!

I suspect that the whole carbon credits/global warming/Kyoto Treaty is nothing more than a fleecing of the people - to some degree or other. To wit, the carbon credit scheme (paying money allows you to pollute?) is next to extortion. It does NOTHING to stop global warming - as the nutcases are screaming about.

Now, don't get me wrong. I do believe we can do a much better job at managing our environment and that we do have to be careful in that respect. I even use the energy efficient bulbs in my house and business. I do it because it uses less energy and is cheaper over a period of time. But - it is, I admit, a damn half-baked stupid idea ultimately, because each of these bulbs contains MERCURY. And boy oh boy, won't that be fun when those end up in the junk yard. I can hear it now. Everyone will scream and cry that we need to go back to tungsten bulbs then. Just like with the nuclear power plants in the 70's and 80's. We had to STOP building them because they were BAD. Now, full circle, we're going to go back to them to appease the environmental wackoes once again. Which, really brings up another point. Think about it... these people will never be satisfied, the sky will ALWAYS fall for them.

Back to Ross though... people like him choose to "slime" blog sites rather than the REAL SOURCE of their issues - it's thought control after all. It's hatred. If indeed they are as NOBLE as they claim, if indeed people like Ross REALLY do care about the environment, like they pretend, then why aren't they pounding down the doors at the UN demanding that China and India (the 2 leading polluters in the world) stop what they are doing to the environment?? Any why don't they go after their own High Priest (Al Gore) for continuing to burn up fossil fuels like there's no tomorrow. Eh? Big questions. Silence in return. Well, I can answer... it's because people like Ross and the other ignorant sheeple with him have sadly bought into this nonsense that it's blog sites and America and SUVs and CO2.

It's a scam and people like this Ross fellow - defending Al at any cost, defending the Global Warming scam at any cost - are hypocrites, pure and simple.

Ross gets even funnier when he digs up "other" blogs sites that claim that "real" scientists are not to be believed, have no credentials, have no peer-reviews, and are just plain nut cases. As I stated earlier, the internet is a great place for the filth of "manufactured" evidence. Anybody can say anything - how can you check on it? Here's "proof" from the Gorians: " In reference to Dr. Gray's skill as a hurricane forcaster, Dr. Judith Curry writes: Every year, Gray’s forecasts are “wrong” (this does not mean that people don’t want to hear more of them)."

I am laughing. I know who Dr. Gray is. But who is Dr. Curry? Apparently a "mouthpiece" for this hit piece about Dr. Gray. And as far as predicting hurricanes - this is even funnier - the global warming nuts (presumably Dr Curry perhaps?) had predicted a dozen or more KILLER hurricanes for the 2006 season. We had - oh - ZERO. Then, they came back and said, well, we really meant the 2007 season. Yes, a dozen or more deadly KILLER hurricanes, worst on record, for 2007. How many? Oh, maybe one little one came near the US. And well, that about sums it up.

Oh yes, finally, SCIENCE BY CONSENSUS is NOT science... anyone that thinks that REAL science is by consensus is, well, a moron. Ever heard of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD?
Look it up chumps! The word "consensus" does not exist in that explanation.

The Harvard Crimson's editorial page tackles Al Gore's hypocrisy on Global Warming. They write, "Many Americans would naturally assume Gore follows the green lifestyle he widely promotes, and they would be wrong. Gore and his wife Tipper, whose children all live elsewhere, reside in a behemoth 20-room mansion outside of Nashville that used nearly 23,000 kilowatt-hours last August, more than twice the annual-yes, annual-energy usage of a typical American home. Gore's preferred mode of transportation between stops on his international publicity tour is his private jet, which spews out CO2 emissions at the rate of a small army of SUVs."

"These celebrities and politicians justify their unnecessary consumption by purchasing carbon credits, which many of the nouveau-conscious acquire in order to offset their excessive energy usage. Carbon credits were established by the Kyoto Protocol, which established limits on carbon emissions for most countries (incidentally the United States has still not signed this agreement even though it is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases). Countries and companies who fall below their established limits are free to trade their credits in the global emissions market to other parties-including individuals-who have exceeded their emissions limits. When celebrities today buy these credits, they are allowing themselves to continue their disproportionate consumption while somewhere else in the world carbon emissions are reduced by other societies to make up for American excess. "

Bottom line, Carbon Credits are a SCAM. Ergo, Global Warming is a SCAM.

Click HERE for the article.

Amazingly, the founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, has said of Global Warming : "It is the greatest scam in history". He continues: "I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus."

He continues: "Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment."

Further, he writes: "I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming. In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious."

AMAZING! Just AMAZING. Click HERE for the article.

A top executive at Emirates (a Dubai based carrier), Maurice Flanagan, after watching Al Gore's hysterical movie about global warming, stated that the movie was pure rubbish. Click HERE. Flanagan said, "Don't talk to me about global warming... I just do not buy it whatsoever. Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' is absolute rubbish."

However, it can be argued that the aviation industry does indeed have an impact on the environment. I think it does to a minor degree. But if anything, it might actually counter the mythological global warming with the contrails created (no, I did not say "chemtrail". "Chemtrails" are another idiotic and hysterical creation by those that haven't an education.) by high flying aircraft. Those vapor clouds should actually be reflecting back solar heat - cutting the heating effect of the sun a little bit. So... perhaps Flanagan is 100% correct here.