I have started this thread...please use it only for posting climate articles for and against AGW...but no comments are allowed on this thread thanks...just articles...can you please respect these thread directions...there are plenty of other threads to comment and to go for it...please just leave this one in peace thanks.

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/weat...0205-1ahl0.html
"
DON'T blame Ricky Ponting, Michael Clarke or Mitchell Johnson. The real reason Australia lost the Ashes lies in the heavens.

A scan of Ashes results over more than a century shows that there is an uncanny correlation between Australia's fortunes and the weather patterns known as El Nino and La Nina, during which varying ocean temperatures in the eastern Pacific Ocean cause rainfall in eastern Australia to be lower than average and higher than average, respectively.

It's the kind of link that should be noted by captains, selectors and gamblers alike.

Advertisement: Story continues below The correlation was discovered by Dr Manoj Joshi, a University of Reading climate researcher, who found that during series held in Australia since 1882, the home team have won 13 of 17 series played during El Nino and just five of 13 played during La Nina years.

Conversely, England have won just one Ashes series in Australia during El Nino, the Bodyline series of 1932-33.

Joshi published his findings before the recent Ashes series. But, while some would consider the link between the Ashes and the weather as coincidental or even tenuous, results in the series just ended seem to back up his findings..."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/05/sn...ive/#more-33284
snowzilla-post-mortem-the-2011-groundhog-day-blizzard-in-perspective

I have started this thread...please use it only for posting climate articles for and against AGW...but no comments are allowed on this thread thanks...just articles...can you please respect these thread directions...there are plenty of other threads to comment and to go for it...please just leave this thread in peace thanks.

BD,

I'm not making a comment. I'm asking some housekeeping questions. It isn't a comment to ask a question about the rendering or authenticity of an article, but it is important.

I think you can be certain that all of the articles posted will be carefully checked against the original, as we have had 'accidents in the past', in which links bore no resemblance to what was claimed, and also it is not a comment but a suggestion that extracts from articles be clearly identified as such.

Did you really mean 'for' and 'against' as distinct from 'about'. Plenty of articles canvass a range of views without scoring say 10/10 for being either 'for' or 'against'.

Is the Snowzilla article for or against AWG? I think it would help if you said For or Against AGW at the start of each post.

My take on Snowzilla. Climate scientists forecast that there will be heavier than normal precipitation in a CO2 induced warming world. That is exactly what we are now witnessing. It's a cold winter in North America so of course that extra precipitation would be falling as snow.

Therefore this would be classed as a For AGW article.

For or against AGW, heck I wrote it and had humbug on both side in the cross-hairs.

Weather extremes equal the sun of their parts … or do they?
by Ben Sandilands

January 10, 2010 @http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/01/12/weather-extremes-equal-the-sun-of-their-parts-or-do-they/

A frozen northern world and new heat records in the southern hemisphere are suddenly making the impact of a deep solar minimum on the world’s weather a politically correct topic.

Yet a year ago I was attacked in Crikey by global warming experts for daring to suggest, in Crikey, that something odd was happening on the sun.

It should emphasised, science has not yet linked the big freeze to the “quietest sun” since 1913 but the historical coincidences between supposedly insignificant deep solar minimums and cold weather are under review and references to them as being factors in very cold winters are appearing in places where they were previously dismissed out of hand.

The big freeze across Europe and parts of North America has energised the climate-change deniers just as the fierce dry heatwaves of this summer have encouraged global warming warriors to attack opponents of the government’s ETS, even though it was useless and dishonest in addressing what is a crisis in fossil carbon pollution of the atmosphere.

The issue for serious climate science now includes possible linkages between the appearance of an Arctic oscillation that no one predicted but that drove frigid air across Europe and much of middle and eastern North America, and the solar lull that has just ended.

As explained in this Clarifier, the sun blind-sided the situation by extending its normal 11-year cycle of activity to 13 years, reaching its nadir in old cycle sunspot activity in the second half of last year instead of mid-2007 as expected.

Not since the even deeper solar minimums of 1901 and 1913 had the sun been so quiet. And between or near them, which was the first time since the Dalton Minimum of 1890-1830 that two or more such notable minimums occurred in sequence, the weather in Australia, Europe and North America produced some very harsh winters and very balmy summers.

These events included the Niagara Falls freezing solid upstream, downstream and in situ, and several exceptional snow outbreaks in the eastern states of Australia and South Australia.

But there was no glacial response. The temperate glaciers of New Zealand and Europe continued to gradually down waste. The summers offset the severity of the winters. And the inexorable rise of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, which can be traced to the pre-industrial embrace of forest clearing, charcoal making and cement production, continued without variability, rising from 296 ppm in the Law Dome ice cores in 1901 to more than 300 ppm in 1913.

This solar minimum, which was recently ended by strongly rising numbers of new cycle sunspots, coincides with about 390 ppm of CO2 attributed to the inability of the natural carbon dioxide exchange cycles to cope with the outpourings from fossil fuel consumption, as well as synthetic halons never before seen in the atmosphere.

By April last year the GISS was acknowledging that something was going on with the sun, but also that it was of no comfort to climate-change deniers either.

It was time, according to GISS director James Hansen, to seriously study a solar phenomenon (or lack of it), that closely tracked the prolonged cool periods of the Little Ice Age, using tools in space and on earth never available to the astronomers of the Elizabethan Age or the latter Serenissima.

Will the deep solar minimum of 2009 be followed by another, like that of 1913 after 1901, or will the solar cycle now on the upswing revert to normal, and reverse or erase whatever respite the last minimum was contributing to an overheated world.

That is a very alarming question for science and humanity to consider, and as solar physicists failed to predict the behaviour of the sun in the last cycle, no one is offering any answers with confidence just yet.

(NOTES. There were two factual errors in my report. The minimum that preceded 1913 was in 1900, not 1901, and reference to about 390 ppm at the time of writing could have more precisely said 287 ppm of CO2)

OK a short housekeeping message:
Post whatever you like, but the idea is that there are no comments at all on the article that is posted, for or against any article that is posted,
so people can make up their own mind on each article.
We are mature thinking folk and can all make up our own mind without having others tell us the merits or whatever about every article.
The idea is just a peaceful place to post articles for and against AGW. If you agree with the article fine, if not fine,
but leave it at that & do not comment at all please, and let all read for themselves without having others opinions on the articles,
the articles will stand or fall with each reader on their own accord then.
Just a place where folk can post without fear of ridicule or running down of what they happen to put up.
Therefore no comments at all please!...You have plenty of other threads to comment on any items of AGW.
the design of this thread is not for that. the article may be for AGW or against or middle line, it does not matter.
The reader will make up their own mind on the merits of it.

Global Conversations: Climate
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/ConversationsClimate
A few facebook links

Australian Climate Madness
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/australianclimatemadness

Global warming
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/pages/Global-warming/89477928727

Global Warming or Global Governance
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/pages/Global-Warming-or-Global-Governance/69295891141

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs
http://www.petitionproject.org/

Read this

The OISM signatories represent a small fraction (~0.3%) of all science graduates, even when we use the OISM’s own definition of a scientist. If we remove all the engineers, medical professionals, computer scientists, and mathematicians, then the 31,478 “scientists” turn into 13,245 actual scientists. 13,245 scientists is only 0.1% of the scientists graduated in the U.S. since the 1970-71 school year.

Contrast that petition with the fact that every single national academy of science on planet Earth acknowledges the risks associated with altering the chemistry of the oceans and atmosphere.

http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/barefoot-in-the-snow.pdf

Report against emmissions targets. Supports natural climate change but discredits the weighting of man made climate change. Points to a possibility of an era of global cooling over the next period.

Climate Change IS Increasing the Frequencies of Major Geological Events
http://feww.wordpress.com/2009/01/01/climate-change-earthquakes-volcanic-eruption/

There will be more earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and landslides both on the land and sea floor

In a study first published on the web in 2004, NASA and United States Geological Survey (USGS) scientists found that retreating glaciers in southern Alaska may lead to more earthquakes in future.

Costs and benefits(?) of emissions trading scheme

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andre...ow_if_it_works/

Atmospheric CO2 levels

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/last-time-carbon-dioxide-levels-111074.aspx

http://www.earth.webecs.co.uk/
earthquake long term trends

Judith Curry's blog on yes/no issue
http://judithcurry.com/2011/03/11/talking-past-each-other/

A key component of the scientific argument for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has been disproven. The results are hiding in plain sight in peer-reviewed journals.

Politicians and scientists still cling to the same hypothesis: Increased emission of CO2 into the atmosphere (by humans) is causing the Earth to warm at such a rate that it threatens our survival. The reality of our global temperatures, the failure of these catastrophic predictions to materialize, and the IPCC scandals all continue to cast serious doubt on that hypothesis.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_agw_smoking_gun.html

Is CO2 Warming a Mirage?

By P Gosselin on 11. Februar 2011

Reader and contributing author Ed Caryl sends another essay, and warns it may be controversial for the obsessed among us who insist a catastrophe is coming.

http://notrickszone.com/2011/02/11/is-co2-warming-a-mirage/

Mathematical Errors Overestimate Persistence of CO2 in Atmosphere

Read more at Suite101: Mathematical Errors Overestimate Persistence of CO2 in Atmosphere http://www.suite101.com/content/royal-so...6#ixzz1HBlR0n3Q

Top international experts show British numbers on carbon dioxide are wrong. A Royal Society math mistake exaggerates climate impact.

http://www.suite101.com/content/royal-society-humiliated-by-global-warming-basic-math-error-a296746

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=275925

Global warming as 'cargo cult science'
Posted: March 17, 2011
1:00 am Eastern

By James Wanliss, Ph.D.
© 2011

During World War II, remote Pacific islands like Vanuatu became involved in war efforts when they became part of supply lines. To the natives the arrival of noisy "birds" was almost miraculous, bringing delicious foods and wondrous cargo.

After the war the birds left. Into the uncertain vacuum returned old terrors of hunger and sickness, and an angry Earth. Superstitious natives copied what they had seen. They made model planes and runways. They had the form right – the outward form of religion – but lacked power. As they had seen so they, and their priests, did. But no airplanes landed. Anthropologists call this religion a "cargo cult."

Likewise cargo cult "science" can arise, noted physicist Richard Feynman, when researchers go through the motions of scientific rituals without actually doing science. Experiment first, conclusions later is the basis of scientific inquiry. Cargo cult science predetermines conclusions and reverses the order. This is a conscious perversion of normal scientific practice. It can be called post-normal science because power over other people, not truth, is the goal. Post-normal science is a deformed bloom in which the search to explain our physical world is less significant than the quest to use scientific authority to achieve political goals.

Global-warming federal-scientific partnerships form the basis for several cargo cults. Many billions of dollars are thrown at studying global warming, and recent Climategate scandals reveal prominent scientists failing (or forbidding) to ask critical questions that might challenge cherished beliefs, or threaten gravy trains. Annual federal funding to study global warming is around $4 billion and rising.

Understand the destructive worldview – and religion – of radical environmentalism – watch the powerful DVD set "Resisting the Dragon"

Mike Hulme, a professor of climate change and priest in this cargo cult, explains:

"The function of climate change I suggest, is not as a lower-case environmental phenomenon to be solved. … It really is not about stopping climate chaos. Instead, we need to see how we can use the idea of climate change … to rethink how we take forward our political, social, economic and personal projects over the decades to come." ("Why We Disagree about Climate Change")

So global warming is not essentially about science, but essentially about politics. Then science becomes not about seeking to understand our world, but about activism and influencing public opinion.

(Column continues below)




After three hard winters with long periods of cold and heavy snowfall, not only in this country but worldwide, anyone with memory might feel dazed and confused. On the one, hand the United Nations and its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) constantly assure us the pace of global warming is accelerating. On the other hand, these same IPCC scientists assured us only recently that "[m]ilder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms" and make for "shorter snow accumulation periods" (United Nations IPCC, Climate Change 2001: Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability). And make no mistake, these claims were not made lightly. No ifs, ands, or buts were allowed. You must remember the science was settled, the facts incontrovertible, the debate over. The IPCC even won a Nobel Peace Prize to testify to the truth of these contentions. But … there is the snow and global cooling for over a decade. In the Alice in Wonderland world of the post-normal, global warming means … whatever you like. Global warming means global cooling, if that is politically convenient. Reality is stranger than fiction.

Pagan priests would explain dissonance in terms of inadequate devotion; planes fail to come because we are not living correctly. The global-warming cargo cult is also almost magical in its ability to explain how almost every environmental calamity – too much, or too little, snow – is caused by humanity's insensitivity toward our mother planet.

For Christians, Truth is paramount. My book "Resisting the Green Dragon" explains how for pagans, what matters most is power, not truth. So it was in Vanuatu where pagans worshipped the Serpent as a spirit of evil. They lived in abject terror of his influence and directed all their worship toward pacifying his rage. In cargo cult science, are we unconsciously returning to the dark age of magic, in which truth suffers and people tremble for fear that their smallest actions may offend an "angry" Earth?

James A. Wanliss is associate professor of physics at Presbyterian College, Clinton, S.C., and author of "Resisting the Green Dragon: Dominion, Not Death" (Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, 2010).

Read more: Global warming as 'cargo cult science' http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=275925#ixzz1HZNYpKh0