Ice Age Question for Climate Alarmists

• probably the most severe ice age of the last billion years occurred from 850 to 630 million years ago during the Cryogenian period
• it may have produced a Snowball Earth with glacial ice sheets reaching the equator
• a number of other ice ages have occurred on earth with glacial and interglacial periods

Questions for climate alarmists:

• What caused the warming that brought this massive ice age to an end?
• What caused the warming that brought an end to every ice age in the history of planet Earth?

Measuring Climate Thoughout the Biosphere

The biosphere (or ecosphere) — which measures about 12 miles from top to bottom — represents the sum of all the Earth's ecosystems operating in the atmosphere (air), hydrosphere (water), and lithosphere (earth) physical dimensions of the planet. The biosphere has existed for about 3.5 billion years.

Creating a comprehensive energy-in/energy-out model for properly measuring climate change involves temperature monitoring and weather activity/event monitoring in every area of these dimensions.

Related questions to climate scientists, therefore, include:

Lithosphere (earth)

Given that:

• 95% of the world’s population is concentrated in just 10% of the land surface*
• half the planet's population lives on just 1% of the land
• half of the world's population lives in urban areas**

Questions:

1. How are we capturing temperature data from less- or unpopulated areas of the Earth?
2. How are we accounting for the effect of human activity — e.g., heat captured by buildings and pavement, incineration gases, pollution, etc. — when monitoring temperatures in populated areas?
3. How are we monitoring temperature in higher ranges (mountains), in deserts, and in other difficult terrains, i.e., Antarctica?
4. How far down into the earth (crust) are we taking temperature readings?
5. How are we monitoring and factoring in the energy of tectonic movement, earthquakes, etc.?
6. How is the energy/heat of volcanic eruption accounted for?
7. How is the energy in the Earth's "core" factored in?

Hydrosphere (water)

Given that oceans:

• cover approximately 71% of Earth's surface
• comprise 90% of Earth's biosphere
• are less than 5% explored
• have total volume of approximately 320 million cubic miles
• have an average depth of nearly 2.3 miles

Questions:

1. How are we capturing temperature data from the unexplored 95% of the world's oceans?
2. How are we monitoring temperature in lower levels of the world's oceans (down several miles) and in the coldest areas, i.e., the Artic and Antarctic regions?
3. How are we capturing the energy of water and wave movement in the world's oceans?

Outside of oceans . .

1. How are we measuring the temperature of freshwater bodies, e.g., lakes, rivers, ponds, creeks, etc., around the world?
2. How are we capturing the energy of water and wave movement in freshwater bodies around the world?

Atmosphere (air)

Given the Earth's atmosphere consists of a . .

• number of layers that differ in properties such as composition, temperature, and pressure — each of the layers having a different lapse rate, which defines the rate of change in temperature with height — e.g.
• troposphere (up to 11 miles high) is the lowest layer, where three-quarters of the atmosphere's mass resides and the layer within which terrestrial weather develops
• stratosphere (up to 22 miles) contains the ozone layer and is where most of the ultraviolet radiation from the Sun is absorbed
• mesosphere (up to 53 miles) is the layer where most meteors burn up
• thermosphere (up to 430 miles) contains the ionosphere region where the atmosphere is ionized by incoming solar radiation

Questions:

1. How are we capturing temperature data from each of these levels of the Earth's atmosphere?
2. How are we capturing the energy received, released, or deflected with events, activities, and movement in these levels of the Earth's atmosphere?

And finally . .

1. how are all of these temperature readings being combined to create a worldwide average temperature?
2. how are all the world's weather and other events that involve energy in the three biosphere dimensions being factored into this average?
3. how are the energy and movement related to the rotation of the Earth, and their impact on climate, factored into this analysis?

---

*from a 2009 European Commission Joint Research Center map in World Bank World Development report.
**from a map was created using gridded population data compiled by NASA.

On a System to Measure Climate Change

H₀: Human-generated C02 causes significant climate change.

We are unlikely ever to test such a scientific hypothesis properly. An effective, comprehensive biosphere energy-in-energy-out model would require substantial scientific understanding we do not currently possess. The timeline for measuring climate change is itself measured in billions of years and human activity that might affect it is only a minuscule portion of that — and the very tail end. 

But, we might still wish to develop a system for measuring climate change, and how rapidly it seems to be progressing toward some unliveable zone, to alert the citizens of the world to related danger.

Or, we might wish to develop a system for measuring climate change simply to counteract persistent efforts to connect human activity to dangerous change — with related efforts to control human behavior and economic activity — with the purported aim to save the world and its inhabitants from climate catastrophe.

Without such a system, which establishes an agreed protocol with governments and NGOs worldwide to . .

1. put climate activity today in historical perspective with earth's experience millions and billions of years back.
2. provide for consistent and even measurement of all relevant levels of the atmosphere (air), hydrosphere (water), and lithosphere (earth).

. . predictions of future catastrophe not based in any sort of scientific reality spin hysteria on conjecture founded only in speculation — becoming an out-of-control catastrophe-spinning machine which has no way of being reeled back in.

To this end, one of two outcomes of investing the time and money in developing such a system might suffice:

1. debunking the purported between human activity and climate change, or at least
2. defusing the related catastrophizing

It would likely be far less expensive than the alternative: massive governmental intervention in our lives and economic activity. Or transplanting ourselves to another planet.

We might also develop a better understanding of how natural events affect climate — volcano eruptions and "volcanic winter", for example — and how we might apply developing technology to mitigate their effect.


SEE ALSO:

• "The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics" by Joe Weisenthal; Business Insider, July 30, 2009.
• "Understanding the Global Warming Debate" by Warren Meyer; Forbes, February 9, 2012.
• Global Warming, Dr. Roy Spencer, PhD. blog.
• "Denying the Catastrophe: The Science of the Climate Skeptic's Position" by Warren Meyer; Forbes, October 15, 2010.

"In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

Michael Crichton

National Press Club 2005

on global warming

"Based On Nonsense"

"When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period."

"Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial."

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen

"Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?"

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer

"We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science."

Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore

SEE: Prominent Scientists Declare Climate Claims Ahead of UN Summit ‘Irrational’

"Never Call It a Tax"

"Furthermore, if we were to charge a fee - oh, we must never call it a tax - on fossil fuels, wind would be way cheaper — way cheaper."

Bill Nye

"Cartoon Picture"

"Last week, we learned of an incredibly massive black hole in the early universe. Now we have this average galaxy with significant amounts of dust. We've had this cartoon picture of the early universe, but it's clear that we really don't know what's going on."

Daniel Marrone, University of Arizona

"The Science is Not Valid"

"The ocean is not rising significantly. The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number. Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing). I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid."

John Coleman, Weather Channel founder

"It's Called Weather"

Coldest June Ever Recorded in Antarctica

"during June this year, the average [Antarctic] temperature was -22.4c (-8.3F), 6.6c (11.9F) lower than normal. This is the coldest June ever recorded at the station, and almost the coldest monthly average ever – only September 1953 was colder, with a recorded average temperature of -23.5c (-10.3F)."

Watts Up With That?

Is Joan Rivers Losing It?

Comedienne Joan Rivers, 81, recently declared in an on-street interview that the First Lady Michelle Obama is a "tranny", a transvestite. Fortunately we can apply scientific analysis to Michelle's physical proportions to see if they match a man's or a woman's—thereby determining if Joan Rivers might be losing it.

A man’s ring finger is typically longer than his index finger. It's not uncommon for a woman to have ring and index fingers of similar lengths, but it is extremely rare for a woman to have a visibly longer ring finger. Let's consider photos of Michelle’s hands. Her ring finger appears to be visibly longer than her index finger.

On a woman’s body shoulder width is typically two and a half times the width of her head. A man’s shoulders are typically the equivalent of three times the width of his head. If we look at Michelle we see her shoulder width is more compatible with those of a man.

Michelle Obama appears to have the hand and shoulder width proportions of a man. Should we be considering the old lady's thoughts on this matter?

SEE ALSO: "Which Finger Is Longer?"

"Astonishing"

“It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%.”

Dr. David Legates, author

Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’

Key Questions

Comparing an average world temperature today to one from a year, decade—or even century ago—requires an agreed, accepted, consistent protocol on determining that data point.

A carefully-designed scientific protocol, involving a methodology agreed to by those who might make some substantive use of the resulting readings—one tested (and adjusted) over a considerable period of time, correcting for long-term historical trends in global temperature and solar activity—might have some indicative, directional value in determining world temperature trends that might be cause for alarm.

The World . .

1. Comprises immense land, sea, and air areas of varying shapes and depths—each zone retaining, dissipating, and affecting temperature and weather differently.
2. Possesses highly diverse geological features that affect temperature and weather.
3. Experiences measureless weather events and activity during any given period.
4. Supports other living creatures, that outnumber humans, who can have their own effect on temperature readings. 

And regional and global climate is always, and has always been, changing.

Human beings . .

1. Affect temperature readings by their presence and activities—e.g., building locations and design, roads and pavement, etc.
2. Populate, depopulate, and repopulate diverse regions of the World at different times historically.
3. Measure temperature differently depending on prevailing technology and procedures.

Temperature readings used to make determinations of climate change—that might drive social, political, or economic policy—must consider and account for these aspects and dimensions of global human experience.

Reported differences in average world temperature . .

• "According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and shown in this series of maps, the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880."¹
• "Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures warmed roughly 1.53°F (0.85ºC) from 1880 to 2012, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . ."²
• "The average temperature of the Earth's surface increased by about 1.4 °F (0.8 °C) over the past 100 years, with about 1.0 °F (0.6 °C) of this warming occurring over just the past three decades."³

In 1880 and 2000s: What was the technology and procedure used to determine an average global temperature in the atmosphere; oceans, lakes, and rivers; and earth? Where were measuring devices placed geographically, and at what height? When were measurements taken? Over what daily time period were they averaged? How were measurements recorded? What areas were populated? What was the impact of human development on temperature readings?

How does this difference in average temperature over time compare to what's expected historically and in terms of solar activity and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? How do we measure carbon dioxide then and now?

How much of any difference in temperature year-to-year might be attributed to variations over time in any of the above areas? to a lack of any agreed protocol on how to determine an average global temperature?

KEY QUESTIONS:

1. Is there any real way to have a generally accepted average world temperature, or trend in global temperature, without a scientific protocol agreed to by groups concerned?
2. Has there ever been a scientific protocol agreed to by groups concerned about determining an average world temperature at any given point in time?
3. How might one be developed?

RELATED: Discuss amongst yourselves . .

---

1. The Earth Observatory, part of EOS Project Science Office, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.

2. The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.
3. The National Academies.

On Settled Science

"The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened . . We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now. The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium . . (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising . ."

James Lovelock, "Godfather of Global Warming"

“One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”

Revenge of Gaia

Discuss amongst yourselves . .

Comparing March 2014 weather to that of Marches past in the town of St. Johnsbury, Vermont would seem to be fairly simple—especially considering the venerable Fairbanks Museum & Planetarium has been keeping careful temperature records there since the early 1890s.

Turns out that by one temporal range—either 4am to 4pm or midnight to midnight—March 2014 ranks one way against previous years, by the other time range another. The difference, of course, coming down to tenths of degrees.

The weathermen reporting this difference make allowance for this (to the rest of us) unfamiliar nuance, but seem to leave out a dozen others. In comparing one year's "climate" to another's, even in a relatively small area like St. Johnsbury, meteorologists would also have to consider . .

1. Technology: what kind of measuring devices were in the two periods; analog vs. digital; precision; etc.
2. Readings: from where exactly were readings taken; distance from ground; how often; by whom; how were data recorded/preserved; etc.
3. Development: what was the state of the area's development; population; asphalt use; building patterns; etc.
4. Weather patterns: geological shape of area; how does air move through it; where do temperature gradients occur; etc.

Meteorologists could develop this list further if prompted. If possessed of a professional integrity, they might tell you there's actually no way to make a fine-point comparison between temperatures in the 1890s and those in the 2010s.

CONSIDER: there is no acceptable, consistent, continuous methodology for recording the average temperature of a region. Until such an approach is developed and agreed to, such comparisons are pure folly—especially where they involve cutting degrees into shaved particles.

Please discuss amongst yourselves.

EXTRA CREDIT: How might this relate to the discussion of global warming?

Don't Touch My Junk Science

Al Gore in the emperor's new clothes

Queen Elizabeth I: A Case of Testicular Feminization?

Serpent or rose?

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to provide support for the hypothesis that Queen Elizabeth I was a case of testicular feminization (male pseudohermaphroditism) and for the explanation of her contemporaries and of some historians, that she never married because of some congenital defect.

The phenotypical characteristics of the testicular feminization syndrome are strikingly similar to descriptions of Elizabeth's appearance, personality, behaviour, and particularly, to those physical defects which her contemporaries believed made her sterile and unwilling to marry.

Modern historians have rejected the "physical defect" explanation of Elizabeth's refusal to marry in favour of a "psychological" explanation. The basic premise of the "psychological" explanation, that Elizabeth was physically capable of bearing children is unsound for a number of reasons.

Recent advances in our understanding of the process of sexual differentiation, particularly, the description of the testicular feminization syndrome, justify a re-evaluation of the "physical defect evidence" of Elizabeth's contemporaries.

Med Hypotheses. 1985 July; 17(3): 277-84 by R. Bakan (PDF for sale).

See also: "Was Queen Elizabeth I a Man?"

'We Are Actually All Martians'

"The evidence seems to be building that we are actually all Martians; that life started on Mars and came to Earth on a rock."

Prof Benner, The Westheimer Institute for Science and Technology

SOURCE: Sky News

Start of a mini Ice Age?

Icicles in Trafalgar

"As a species, we human beings have become so blind with conceit and self-love that we genuinely believe that the fate of the planet is in our hands — when the reality is that everything, or almost everything, depends on the behavior and caprice of the gigantic thermonuclear fireball around which we revolve.

"By my calculations, this is now the fifth year in a row that we have had an unusual amount of snow; and by unusual I mean snow of a kind that I don’t remember from my childhood: snow that comes one day, and then sticks around for a couple of days, followed by more.

"I remember snow that used to come and settle for just long enough for a single decent snowball fight before turning to slush; I don’t remember winters like this. Two days ago I was cycling through Trafalgar Square and saw icicles on the traffic lights; and though I am sure plenty of readers will say I am just unobservant, I don’t think I have seen that before.

"I see from the BBC website that there are scientists who say that “global warming” is indeed the cause of the cold and snowy winters we seem to be having. A team of Americans and Chinese experts have postulated that the melting of the Arctic ice means that the whole North Atlantic is being chilled as the floes start to break off — like a Martini refrigerated by ice cubes.

"I wish I knew more about what is going on, and why. It is time to consult once again the learned astrophysicist, Piers Corbyn. According to Piers, global temperature depends not on concentrations of CO2 but on the mood of our celestial orb. There are times in astronomical history when the Sun has been churning out more stuff — protons and electrons and what have you — than at other times. When the Sun has plenty of sunspots, he bathes the Earth in abundant rays.

"When the solar acne diminishes, it seems that the Earth gets colder. No one contests that when the planet palpably cooled from 1645 to 1715 — the Maunder minimum, which saw the freezing of the Thames — there was a diminution of solar activity. The same point is made about the so-called Dalton minimum, from 1790 to 1830. And it is the view of Piers Corbyn that we are now seeing exactly the same phenomenon today . .

'There is every indication that we are at the beginning of a mini ice age. The general decline in solar activity is lower than NASA’s lowest prediction of five years ago. That could be very bad news for our climate. We are in for a prolonged cold period. Indeed, we could have 30 years of general cooling.'

"It doesn’t seem as nuts as it did five years ago. I look at the snowy waste outside, and I have an open mind."

FROM: "It’s snowing, and it really feels like the start of a mini ice age: Something is up with our winter weather. Could it be the Sun is having a slow patch?" by Boris Johnson (Mayor of London since 2008); January 21, 2013.

Cloning Neanderthal

Scientist with Neanderthal skull.

Harvard Medical School professor George Church, 58 – pioneer in synthetic biology who helped initiate the Human Genome Project that mapped our DNA – believes he can reconstruct Neanderthal DNA and resurrect the species. His analysis of Neanderthal genetic code using samples from bones is complete enough to reconstruct their DNA, but Professor Church’s ambitious plan requires a human volunteer. As he puts it . .

"It depends on a hell of a lot of things, but I think it can be done. Now I need an adventurous female human."

Professor Church’s plans to create Neanderthal DNA artificially based on genetic code found in fossil remains. This DNA would then go into stem cells, which would be injected into cells from a human embryo. The stem cells would steer the development of the hybrid embryo on Neanderthal lines, rather than human ones – at least that's the hope. After growing in the lab for a few days, the ‘neo-Neanderthal’ embryo would be implanted in the womb of a surrogate mother – the human volunteer.

To volunteer, go here.