The Bright Side History – The Benefits of Global Warming – @midnight with Chris Hardwick

We all know that global warming is perhaps the biggest threat facing humanity over the next 50 years, but it's not all bad news according to Yahoo. According to a recent study, rising temperatures will actually be good for getting folks in North Dakota out of the house. You never even thought about that part of it. -(applause and cheering) -We never even thought about it. You, selfish, underwater Hawaiians, it's not all about you all of the time! ORLANDO JONES: Yeah. -What about North Dakota? -Yeah. -Yeah. -Yeah. For some people, global warming is a good thing. There are at least 40 meth-addicted frackers and a dozen or so buffalo veterinarians who stand to benefit from it being a little nicer outside for once. -So maybe open your (bleep) minds… -(applause, cheering) …and think of some of the benefits of global warming. I mean sure, sure, the mosquito population will skyrocket and give most of the southern hemisphere super Ebola, but for a lucky few, they'll get to sit out on their porch on a balmy February night in North Dakota and get radiated by the sunset with their pet polar bear who now will look like this, -and great, I say.

Fun. -(laughter, applause) That's what they look like when you shave them. -Every polar bear. -(cheers and applause) Polar bears look all scary, but underneath, just a little wiener. -Just… -(laughter) So, comedians, I've listed a couple, but I'm sure there are a lot more ways to approach this very optimistically. What are some other benefits of global warming? -Orlan… I'm sorry. Nimesh. -Donald Trump will spend his winters in Swamp Mar-a-Lago. -HARDWICK: Yes. Points. Very good. -(laughter) -(applause and cheering) -Orlando. Well, if it's hot as balls, we know nudist colonies are gonna be lit. -HARDWICK: All right. Points. -(laughter) -Yeah. -Very good. -Lit! -(applause and cheering) -Arden. -Um, it'll only take 15 minutes to fly from coast to coast, Chris. -HARDWICK: Yes. -(laughter) -Points. -Yes! -Finally.

In-flight movie's just gonna be a clip -of the Cash Me Outside Girl. -HARDWICK: Nope. -(laughter).

Climate change: fact vs. fiction

IT IS GOING TO FEEL LIKE IT IS IN THE 20'S. HERE IN MAINE, WE ARE USED TO CHANGING SEASONS AND CHANGING WEATHER, BUT HOW MUCH THE WEATHER HAS CHANGED ON A LARGE SCALE IS THE TOPIC OF A HOTLY DEBATED ISSUE ACROSS THE GLOBE. MALLORY BROOKE RECENTLY ATTENDED A CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AT BENTLEY UNIVERSITY AND HELPS US SEPARATE FACT FROM FICTION. THIS CONFERENCE WAS TARGETED AT BROADCAST METEOROLOGISTS AND HOW WE CAN CLEAR UP SOME OF THE MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING ON AND ABOVE THE EARTH'S SURFACE. WE TOOK TO THE STREETS AND FACEBOOK TO SEE WHAT YOU BELIEVED ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE. I WILL LET YOU KNOW WHETHER THAT IS FACT OR FICTION. GREG BARKER OF LEWISTON SAYS WHILE THE CLIMATE IS CHANGING, I BELIEVE IT IS DUE TO NATURAL FLUCTUATION AND THE SUN'S ENERGY OUTPUT. THAT WOULD BE FICTION. THE LATEST STUDIES SHOW 97% OF SCIENTISTS BELIEVE CHANGES ARE OCCURRING DUE TO HUMAN CAUSES.

IT RICHARD THE BACK TO NATURAL FACTORS, THOSE ARE VERY DIFFERENT TIMESCALES THAN WHAT WE ARE SEEING NOW. OVER THE LAST 100 YEARS, WE HAVE INCREASED ABOUT A DEGREE AND A HALF FAHRENHEIT. ONLY A SMALL TRACTION CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO NATURAL THINGS LIKE ENERGY COMING OFF THE SUN. PAUL HARRISON SAYS HE NOTICED THE EXTREMES. THE EVIDENCE IS AROUND US. MORE SEVERE WEATHER CHANGES. DRASTIC FLOODS. THAT IS A FACT. WE CANNOT LINK ANY OF THOSE EVENTS TO CLIMATE CHANGE, BUT WHAT WE CAN SEE OVER TIME IS THAT WE CAN EXPECT AN INCREASED FREQUENCY OF THOSE EFFECTS. THIS IS SOMETHING WE CAN SEE ON THE CLIMATE SCALE. WE CAN SEE INCREASED PRECIPITATION, INCREASED. FREQUENCY AND PROBABLY SEVERITY OF THESE FORMS AS WELL. STEVE HALL OF WINDHAM SET VIA FACEBOOK, SOME WINTERS ARE WARMER AND SOME HAD SNOW. YOU NEED TO LOOK BACK AT HISTORY. LAST WINTER WAS COLD INTO APRIL.

THAT IS FICTION. ONE SEASON DOES NOT CHANGE MUCH IN THE GRAND SCHEME. CLIMATE IS AVERAGED OUT OVER USUALLY DECADES, AND SO IT TAKES A LONG TIME FOR US TO SEE SOME OF THESE PATTERNS EMERGING OUT OF A SINGLE SEASON. A FROM BRUNSWICK SAYS SHE HAS NOTICED THE CHANGE IN WILDLIFE. THE ANIMALS LIKE SEA TURTLES ARE GETTING DIFFUSED. WHEN WE GET A LITTLE BIT MORE COLD AND PUT ON A JACKET AND GET WARM AND TAKE IT OFF, ECOSYSTEMS ARE MORE FINELY TUNED AND HAVE A NARROW RANGE OF TOLERANCES FOR THINGS LIKE TEMPERATURE. WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IS AN EXPLOSION IN LYME DISEASE CASES. MAINE AND NEW HAMPSHIRE ARE AMONG THE TOP THREE IN NEW REPORTS OF CASES AND 1990. THE REASON FOR THAT IS THE TICS ARE MOVING UP ELEVATION, THEY ARE GOING TO STAY IN AREAS WHERE IT IS WARMER. HE ALSO NOTES THAT NORTHERN NEW ENGLAND HAS WARMED SLIGHTLY MORE THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE.

Weather Channel Founder Backs Trump, Tells The TRUTH About Global Warming

Weather Channel Founder Backs Trump, Tells The TRUTH About Global Warming President Donald Trump has been excoriated for his decision to have the United States exit the Paris Climate Accord. However, one very influential man � John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel � has his back. TAA reports: In a series of tweets and emails Coleman sent to Al Gore and various Democratic supporters and organizations, he called out climate alarmists with a barrage of facts based on actual science and not wishful thinking As it turns out, if you chart global temperatures back into the �70s, there are absolutely no signs of global warming. There�s been less than one degree temperature change since 1978 and no warming to speak of since 1998. So where is the government getting their information from? It turns out that the government has been manipulating climate computer models.

This means that the American tax payers are being charged $4.7 billion a year in taxes that are being used to fund organizations that carry out meaningless studies based on bad science. Basically, the American people are paying fake scientists to lie to them. Find out more in the video below. Government actions to counter �carbon pollution� have raised the cost of fuel, electricity and food by an average of $1000 per year for an average American family of four. If that family of four would only open their Internet browsers and see that the Antarctic Sea is at an all time high and sea levels are rising at an �alarming� rate of around 6 inches per century, they would feel outraged that they�re being taken advantage of, at least one would hope. President Trump was right to leave the Paris Climate Accord � they lie to American taxpayers and waste trillions of dollars..

 

Hackers Back Up US Climate Data So Trump Can’t Delete It

On Friday, January 20th, as Donald Trump was taking the oath of office to become the 45th President of the United States a group of 60 scientists, computer programmers and hackers met at UCLA to completely comb through government archives, the whitehouse.gov website and copy and collect and back up any data that the government has on climate change. They then took all this data and stored it on servers housed in Europe so that the Trump Administration could not touch it. The reason they did this is because they were terrified that the Trump Administration was going to go through and delete all of this data once the swearing in ceremony was finished. To be honest this was something that the scientists and federal employees had worried about a few weeks ago, so they began doing the same thing long before the inauguration even took place. What they're planning to do now is keep this data, go through it, analyze it and then compare it to what is still available on the government websites.

Essentially if the Trump Administration attempts to falsify any data, any reports or scrub anything, these scientists, these hackers, these computer programmers are going to call them out on it. That is probably one of the most positive things I've seen in quite a while. Here's the other side of this, they were right because immediately following the swearing in ceremony the term climate change disappeared from the whitehouse.gov website. I know Trump supporters are out there saying, "No it didn't, it's still there." Well, no there were plenty of search engines, images out there, articles written. The term did completely disappear at least for a little bit. Maybe they've put it back up on a couple pages now. Trump people attempted to write this off by saying, "Of course he believes in climate change.

He's said it over and over again for months." Kellyanne Conway said that. No, Kellyanne, he never said that. He hasn't been saying it for months. Really the last thing we heard from him on climate change is that he believes it's a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. Don't try to tell us with your alternative facts that he has always been a believer in climate change. She verified this by saying because the climate always changes. What idiot Conway is confusing at the moment is climate and weather. The weather changes from day to day. Republicans aren't smart enough to understand that the weather is not climate. They think that if it's snowing one day climate change, global warming, can't be real. Oh God no. Look at the climate outside. They're just not smart enough to understand the difference between weather and climate. That's why the scientists and programmers and hackers had to get together and copy this data and back it up and store it so that we do not lose it for the next four years.

This is decades worth of research and scientific analysis that the Trump Administration is attempting to get rid of. Luckily we do have people out there that took action, they got the data. Hopefully they will call Donald Trump out every single time his administration attempts to falsify, remove or otherwise bastardize decades worth of research on climate change..

8 Negative Effects of Climate Change

Climate change is real, and it’s affecting us all. From severe heat waves to extreme flooding, here are 8 negative effects of climate change. You’d wish it was all just a hoax… Number 8: Destruction of archeological sites We often think about how changes in the climate are threatening the lives of humans, animals, and plants on the planet. But we fail to realize that it’s not only the living that are affected by climate change. In fact, archeological sites – priceless windows to our past – are suffering as well. High sea waves are hitting Easter Island, the famous site of the moai – mysterious giant head-and-torso statues built by ancient Polynesians. The platforms supporting the moai are slowly being damaged by sea water, and if this continues, the monolithic figures might fall off and end up at the bottom of the ocean one day. Mesa Verde National Park in Colorado is also at risk, and is cited as one of the places most vulnerable to climate change in the US.

There are thousands of archeological sites here, constructed by the ancient Puebloans thousands of years ago. But rising temperatures have caused frequent wildfires, and with it the destruction of rock carvings. This also causes the exposure of new sites and artifacts that become vulnerable to erosion and flooding. These are just two examples of many priceless ancient artifacts and ancient archeological sites in the world that are at risk. Archeologists seem to be in a race against time to document and protect these places before they are gone forever. Number 7: Food shortages We’ve mentioned how climate change and global warming leads to drought, deforestation, and pest infestation. All of this combined causes one major problem – it inhibits the ability of farmers to grow food. In order to grow, crops need to be on fertile land, which becomes largely unavailable due to water shortages.

Food shortages have not occurred widely yet, and international trade will likely prevent any major famine to affect us soon – at least not in the near future. But at the rate we’re going, food prices will soon skyrocket, both due to shortages and the need for refrigeration when extreme heat waves come hitting. Third World countries on the other hand, have it harder. In less developed countries, drought equates to star facial and suffrage sing. Prolonged drought and conflict have left 16 million people across East Africa on the brink of star facial and in urgent need of food, water and medical treatment. Number 6: Rising CO2 levels Since the Industrial Revolution over 2 centuries ago, we’ve gradually been producing more and more Carbon Dioxide on a regular basis. With large scale industrialization and the burning of fossil fuels, we’ve put a total of 2000 gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere, and about 40% of it has stayed there.

Humans have only been roaming this planet for a relatively short period, yet today’s CO2 levels are the highest they have ever been for millions of years. C02 is one of the main gases contributing to the greenhouse effect, the process by which radiation from the atmosphere heats the planet’s surface. The greenhouse effect is essential for supporting life on the planet, but its extreme intensification has led to global warming. Number 5: Global Warming Global warming – it is the main form of climate changing, and the 2 terms are even often used interchangeably. As of right now, the Earth is warming at a scary rate, 10 times faster than at the end of the Ice Age. Since we started measuring global surface temperature in 1850, each decade seems to surpass the previous, and that rate does not seem to be slowing down. This directly affects us in a number of ways, mainly in the form of drought and extreme weathers. Since the previous century, mega droughts have been appearing everywhere all over the Earth.

Rainfall has been scarce, farms get deserted, and lakes are drying up. Some lakes have even dried up completely, and are no longer existent. An example is Bolivia’s Lake Poopo, which was once its country’s second largest lake. The process of global warming brought increased temperatures to the region, and its evaporation rate multiplied exponentially since the 1990s. By December 2015, Lake Poopo had completely dried up, leaving only a few marshy areas. According to scientists, it is unlikely that it will ever recover. While some places are affected by drought, other places are more vulnerable to extreme weathers in the form of heat waves and storms. The frequency and duration of heat waves has increased greatly within the past half century, and are only going to get worse. Heat waves alone kill more people in the United States compared to natural disasters like tornadoes, earthquakes, and floods combined. Global warming also affects storm formation, by decreasing the temperature difference between the poles and the equator.

Some experts have found a correlation between global warming and the intensity of recent Atlantic Ocean tropical cyclones such as Katrina, Wilma, and Sandy. Number 4: Losing our forests Climate change affects all life on the planet, and this includes forest ecosystems, many of which have been destroyed indirectly by global warming. Bark beetles are major pests that feed and breed between the bark and wood of various tree species, damaging them in the process. These insects thrive in warm temperatures, and as a consequence of global warming, have expanded their ranges and proliferated widely in the forests of North America and Europe. Millions of acres of forest have been destroyed due to bark beetle infestation in recent years. Another cause of widespread deforestation is wildfire. While climate change does not directly cause trees to burn up, wildfires are generally the result of forests getting extremely dry.

Global warming lessens the humidity of forest areas, making them vulnerable to catch on fire. Forests in the western coast of USA, particularly in California, get set ablaze often during dry seasons. If rain fell more often, these forest fires would be extinguished much quicker. There has indeed been a notable increase in wildfires in California within the last decade compared to the decade before, meaning a correlation with climate change is very much likely, and would probably get worse with rising temperatures. Number 3: Insufficient energy to meet demands Since the dawn of mankind, people have learnt of various ways to keep themselves warm – from starting simple fires to creating electric-powered heaters. One of the main reasons for energy demand used to be heating, as people needed to survive long and chilly winters. But a global trend that started in the past century has seen a reversal, especially with the invention of cooling devices like refrigerators and air conditioners.

With the climate getting warmer and warmer, the demand for cooling has skyrocketed. With the increase in carbon emissions and the resulting hot temperatures, the demand for more energy to produce cooling is getting out of control. The worse thing is that this creates a neverending heat-producing cycle. More demand results in more power plants and cooling devices being created, which when used, emits more carbon that heats up the environment. Our only hope is the creation and use of clean energy sources that could keep up with the demands while breaking this vicious cycle. Research and development in solar power shows promise. On the other hand, hydro-electric power is expected to fall behind, as global warming and droughts have caused a decrease in river water levels. Without enough water flow, generators at the dams will not be able to provide energy.

Meanwhile, sea levels are rising, creating a potential risk of flood and storms that could cripple power generators along coastlines. This would disrupt power transmission to entire cities, and create a more desperate demand for energy. Number 2: Melting ice caps & rising sea levels Water covers more than 70% of our planet, and they absorb most of the heat added to the atmosphere. So it’s only natural that is where the extreme changes of climate change are seen. Sea levels around the world have been rising a 10th of an inch every year, and they’re already up 8 inches since 100 years ago. There are two reasons for this. One water expands as it gets warmer. Two, because glaciers, ice caps and icebergs are melting, so they add up to the ocean’s water volume. White sea ice is essential in reflecting sun rays back up into the atmosphere.

Without an ice layer, the dark ocean absorbs the heat rays, feeding the cycle forward. Summer sea ice in the Arctic has decreased a staggering 40% since just 40 years ago, making it the lowest in 1400 years. Antarctica is also experiencing a similar thing, with its western glaciers melting at an alarming rate. At this current rate, the oceans would be up a meter higher by the end of this century. Coastal settlements would be flooded, and many of them would become uninhabitable. And it’s not just cities, but entire nations are also at risk of being wiped off the map. The island country of Maldives is particularly endangered, and is at risk of being swallowed up by the ocean within the next few decades. Their leaders’ pleas to the world to cut global greenhouse gas emissions have been generally ignored, and they are already looking into purchasing new land from neighboring countries to settle their people in the future. Number 1: Animal extinction All the damages caused by climate change is not only affecting us humans, but nearly all the other species on the planet are also struggling to adapt to these changes that we have caused. A lot of animals, mostly birds, are seen beginning their seasonal migrations a lot earlier.

For instance, scientists have found that the Icelandic black-tailed godwits have started migrating 2 weeks earlier than normal to escape the summer heat. Some animals are moving away from their natural habitats towards cooler areas in higher elevations. The distribution patterns of Adelie penguins across Antarctica have also changed significantly. They are known to mainly feed on Antarctic krills, which are small crustaceans that stay under ice caps. But with fewer ice caps remaining, Adelie penguins find themselves in short of food supply leading to mass migrations. All this migration of various animal species is indeed a sign of the climate getting warmer every year. We have also seen a disturbing change within the behavior of several animals. The melting of polar ice in the summer has led to Polar bears channel arising their own cubs out of desperation in order to stay alive. The ocean is our planet’s largest carbon sink. With more Carbon Dioxide released into the atmosphere, more of it ends up dissolving into the ocean, causing a decrease in the water’s pH levels.

Although still far away from turning the ocean into acid, creatures with calcium shells are really sensitive to these slight changes. The ocean is on the course of hitting a pH level of 7.8 within a century, which would mean the end of about one third of the ocean’s species. The Orange-spotted filefish has already gone locally extinct around Japan due to extensive coral bleaching and hypersensitivity to warm waters. Some animal species have already gone totally extinct. The Golden toad that was once native to the forests of Costa Rica was last sighted in 1989, having likely all bite off due to high temperatures. They were known to mate in wet conditions, and the repeated dry seasons presumably ended their species..

El Nino – What is it?

Every few years the El Niño phenomenon kicks into life in the Pacific Ocean around the equator. It can affect weather around the world changing the odds of floods, drought, heatwaves and cold seasons for different regions even raising global temperatures. But what is El Niño and how does it happen? Firstly we need to know what's normally happening in the tropical Pacific. This vast stretch of ocean sees consistent winds called 'trade winds' that blow from east to west. These winds push warm water near the surface in their direction of travel, so the warm water piles up on the western side of the ocean around Asia and Australasia On the other side of the ocean around South and Central America as the warmer water gets pushed away from the coast it's replaced by cold water which is pulled up from deeper down in the ocean a process called upwelling. This creates a temperature difference across the tropical Pacific with warmer water piled up in the West and cooler water in the east. Warmer water adds extra heat to the air which causes the air to rise with more vigor and its this rising air that creates an area of more unsettled weather with more cloud in rainfall That rising air in the West sets up atmospheric circulation across this part of the world with warm moist air rising on one side of the Ocean and cooler dryer air descending on the other This circulation reinforces the easterly winds so this part of the world sits in a self-perpetuating state until El Niño begins.

If conditions are right tropical Pacific weather systems or slow changes in the ocean around the equator can set off a chain of events which weaken or even reverse the usual trade winds With weakened trade winds there's less push of warm surface water to the western side of the ocean and less upwelling of cold water on the eastern side. This allows the usually colder parts of the ocean to warm canceling out the normal temperature difference. Because the area of warmest water moves so does the associated wet and unsettled weather. This changes rainfall patterns over the equatorial Pacific as well as the large-scale wind patterns. It's this change in winds which has a knock-on effect changing temperature and rainfall in locations around the world. The main impacts are around the tropics where you see an increase in the risk of floods in Peru and droughts in Indonesia, India and parts of Brazil.

But virtually wherever you are in the world El Niño has the potential to affect you directly via the weather or indirectly via socio-economic impacts There's another impact from El Niño which happens because of all the extra heat at the surface of the tropical Pacific. This releases vast amounts of energy into the atmosphere which can temporarily push up global temperatures. This is why El Niño years often feature among the warmest on record. Each El Niño event is different so the global impacts can change. You can find out more about the different impacts of El Niño on our website. El Niño peaks around Christmas-time and last for several months. It can dive back to neutral conditions but sometimes reverses into La Niña.

This is the flip side of the oscillation which sees a strengthening of the normal trade winds. This pushes the warmest water to the far western part of the tropical Pacific and increases the upwelling of cold water in the east. This cooler water extends out from the coast of the Americas towards the central part of the ocean La Niña also impacts global weather and tends to have opposite effects to El Niño. You can also see more about La Niña and its impacts on our website..

The lies of Global Warming

– Begins now 3×1, hier in Brazil TV. I am Luiz Carlos Azedo and today we will discuss the global warming. Our guest is the physicist and meteorologist Luiz Carlos Molion who questions the theories – let’s say, hegemonic in our days – related with this subject. Participate in this interview the journalist Zilda Ferreira, author of the Blog EDUCOM, which deals with environmental education and the journalist Efraim Neto, moderator of the Brazilian network of environmental journalism. <<The Earth, poetically identified as the Blue Planet, located in the Galaxy Via Lactia, orbits in the solar system and is distinguished by its unique atmosphere. Here, in millions of years life has evolved creating a complex system favorable for the existence of thousands of plant and animal species dependent on a food chain. The human being – extractivist – takes its sustenance from the land and the sea.

To enable the agriculture and industry uses various types of energy, obtained mostly from fossil fuels that generate tens of pollutants. On entering the second decade of the new millennium, the greatest challenge of humanity – that is to produce and develop without altering the atmosphere – presents itself as an emergency agenda for all nations. At the recent climate conference in Copenhagen, it became clear that rich countries, emerging or poor need to speak the same language, if they wish truly – in the medium term – contain the aggressions to the global environment.>> – We will start our interview with a question from a viewer. – Why do you say that there is no global warming? – I contend that there is no global warming because it already occurred in the past periods in which they were warmer than now. For example: If we get to the period of the years 800 to 1200 a.C -called Medieval Warm Period – Temperatures were higher than now and at that time the man not released carbon; not emitted carbon into the atmosphere. The Vikings came from Scandinavia and colonized the northern regions of Canada and southern Greenland and are now frozen regions.

So you can see that, that period was warmer than now. Between 1925 and 1946, there was also a very significant warming, which corresponds to approximately 70% of all this warming that – the people say – occurred in the last 150 years. At that time there was an increase of 0.4 degrees Celsius – between 1925 and 1946 – and that very probably due to increased solar activity in the first half of the twentieth century and the fact that in this period practically not occured any large volcanic eruption, so the atmosphere was clean – transparent – and entered more solar radiation and then increased the temperature. Notice! In 1946, after the second World War, the man threw to the atmosphere less than 10% of the carbon that launches today, so it is very difficult to say that the warming between 1925 and 1946 was due to human action. Later – after the war – that, in fact, there was an increase in industrialization, was emitted more carbon, but what happened? A global cooling between 1947 and 1976 and now this latest.

– Dr. Molion, you were commenting on the case of the Vikings, there is a french historian named Pierre Chani who was an expert of studies on European expansion and he said the Vikings not only conquered America because there was a period – immediately after their arrival, in that Arctic region – of cooling of the earth and there is a stream of scientists who defends a thesis against prevailing opinion – which says that there is a global warming – and say that we are on the verge – if we can use this expression – of a new global cooling. Is it? – Perfect. This period, which lasted more or less until 1250 a.C, was followed by what was called the Little Ice Age, which lasted from 1350 until 1920. I mean, very recent. – You assign to this cooling the barbarian invasions, because they have turned to the continent, because of cooling. – It was just the opposite, ie, the cold period leads to frustrations harvest and hunger. You have paintings made at that time showing that the river Thames was frozen.

Paintings from 1630 – 1650 show that fairs were made ​​over the frozen river. So, if I look at history, I would say this: that in the last million years the Earth has gone through nine ice ages. Each ice age lasts for a hundred thousand years. So nine times a hundred thousand gives nine hundred thousand. In one million, 90% of the time, the weather is colder than now. These ice ages are interrupted by warmer periods called interglacial. That we are living, Luiz Carlos, began about 15 thousand years ago and all of human history is summarized in the last ten thousand years. So we are in a period, as you said, on the eve of a new ice age. In fact we can be within a new ice age, since this our interglacial is already with 15 thousand years, according to paleoclimatic studies. So, there is a variability So, there is a variation upon that very slow fall that will take one hundred thousand years, practically, to get to 8 -10 degrees below what is today. On top of that there is a ripple of half a degree up, half a degree down. If we have that, as I said from 1925 to 1946, had a ripple down, a cooling from 1947 to 1976 – which was very bad for Brazil and around the world under the economic point of view – and now we had a small increase from 1977 to 1998 The “cue ball” now is the cooling.

– Is there a disparity of measuring instruments among the various periods? – Certainly, certainly. No doubt. – Would be the diagnosis today more accurate than before? – The biggest problem is not that, because when you put those long series, 100 -150 years, from cities like Paris, Vienna, Berlin… these cities were growing and if the thermometer was stuck in the same place, at the same meteorological station it would suffer the effects of urbanization. What is this effect of urbanization? Rains. If the area is vegetated, there is infiltration of water. The water evaporates and cools the surface. When the city then becomes urbanized, the asphalt and concrete causes the runoff of the water, that there will fall. So, today the cities do not have water to evaporate and the same heat of the Sun causes higher urban temperatures than its surroundings. São Paulo, for example, on the order of 3 degrees. There are studies here in Rio de Janeiro that show as well – depending on the region – the order of 3 – 4 degrees.

So, the effect that is known as Urban Heat Island interferes in the temperature. The same thermometer, even if it is calibrated will show higher temperatures. There is no way to eliminate this effect of urbanization on the measure. There is no way to eliminate. They say that if you select a basket of thermometers around the world that is located in the big cities, what will happen is the trend these thermometers show an ever increasing temperature. But when you use satellites covering the whole globe, including oceanic regions, it is shown that in the last 20 years a slight decrease occurred. Excluding the peak of El Niño, in 1997 – 1998, as El Niños tend to warm the atmosphere… – But does it not come back now, this year? – But this is pretty weak and must die now in February, maximum in March and will not affect, the contrary, it must turn to the cold La Niña. So, when you look at the data taken by satellites..

. – So will be the next year a cold year? – Yes, with cold winters. This is the trend, frosts in the south and southeast, cold temperatures and for us here, relatively drier during the dry season, ie, in the period from April to October, drier than the normal. – Professor, our scientific validation with respect to climate studies are based on numerical models… – That is it. – …and our system of climate research has evaluated and provided to society certain results. How do you evaluate this? – Well, Efraim. The models are nothing more than computer programs. Some are very sophisticated coming to have thousand lines, one million rows. These models attempt to reproduce the physical processes occurring in the atmosphere, but the atmosphere of the Earth depends on externs physical processes, eg, variation in solar activity, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis or earthquakes influence the heat distribution of oceans and also depends on the oceanic processes, for instance, that are treated very badly in these models, particularly with regard to the transport of heat. A climate model, for example, can not reproduce an El Niño. It can not reproduce this variation It can not reproduce this decadal variation of the Pacific lasting 25-30, where the Pacific warms in the tropics and then turns and cools.

The Pacific occupies 35% of the land surface and the atmosphere is heated from below. So, when the Pacific temperature changes, changes the atmosphere and changes the climate. These models make projections, Efraim, upon hypothetical scenarios that will never happen and the models in itself are disabled. So, for example, if I were to believe in this model, I would like to see this model predicting “the past”. Because of the past I already have data, is not it? And they did it, but the error was very large. The current models can not reproduce past climate. So, I have no guarantee that they will predict future climates, ie, model results are useless and do not lend themselves to planning. – Since the 70s, you have been showing the importance of the oceans in relation to climate, this from a global point of view. Since we are talking about climate change from a general point of view, what is the importance of having more advanced studies in relation to the oceans, since it seems to me that this has been of little relevance in relation to the data applied by the IPCC (Intergovermental of Climate Change)? – You are absolutely right, Efraim.

There is a tendency to leave the oceans outside of this climate control, when in reality they are extremely important to control the weather. We are talking about a planet that is 71% covered of water with an average depth of 3,800 meters, ie, this body of water is a huge heat reservoir that softens the climate change, so that the changes are not so big. The differences remained around more or less half degree up, half degree down thanks to the oceans. Recently we – the scientific community – developed a system of buoys – are more than 3,200 buoys – that are special. They dive up to 2,000 meters deep moving with the sea current for 9 and a half days, after they inflate, through a bladder that they have, and start to rise by measuring temperature and salinity. Arrives at the surface and transmits this data to the satellite. So, this system was completed in 2002 and the analysis of the datas from these buoys shows that the heat content of the oceans is declining.

This means that the global oceans are cooling and this cooling will lead to global cooling, not a warming. So, we have two very important factors: The sun, which has a cycle of 90 years and is now going into decline and will be so until the year 2032 and the oceans, which these buoys indicate that is cooling. These two phenomena that are fundamental; two basic controllers of the climate of the Earth will lead to a global cooling for the next 20 years, which is much worse than a warming..

Piers Corbyn: Electrical Weather | Space News

Welcome to Space News from the Electric Universe brought to you by The Thunderbolts Project™ at Thunderbolts.info Among the top Space News stories of 2015 we've seen dramatic affirmations of the electromagnetic connection between the Earth and the Sun. With each new discovery, the Sun's profound influence on Earth's climate and weather becomes more self evident. However, it seems that the electrical nature of the Earth-Sun connection, and its role in so-called climate change, remains nowhere to be found in the popular climate change debate. Today, we check in on one of the leading skeptics of the theory of man-made climate change solar physicist and meteorologists Piers Corbyn. Earlier this year, Piers appeared in a documentary that aired on the BBC's Radio 4 program called, 'What's The Point of the Met Office?' After a firestorm of protest from activists the program was subsequently removed from the BBC's iPlayer playback facility.

We asked Piers what he thinks of the BBC's policies and their coverage of climate change. [Piers] You know, the BBC is totally not impartial for climate change and it propagates the climate change religion, all the time. They have a small amount of skeptics, if you like, or 'climate realists' as I would call them (at times), in order to simply claim they have balance but, in reality they don't have balance – they are totally biased. For example, when they're reporting any weather extremes around the world they repeat and 'pipe up' anything involving warmth, and they ignore things involving cold, or give them a short shrift. [Michael] We are told that the scientific consensus today is that anthropogenic global warming, or climate change, is real. However, how accurate had the climate and weather forecasts been of advocates of this theory? [Piers] The UN climate model and what the BBC sites, and the British Met office sites are the same thing and they are complete nonsense, and they have failed utterly and absolutely.

If they were economic forecasts, or forecasts from a political party of employment or something, they would be thrown out of office. Or, if they were running a business, or they were the managers of the business they'd be closed down. They said basically that world temperatures should have been rising continuously for the last 15 years. Well, they have not been. They had a prediction of very steep rises and, in fact, the temperatures did rise a bit and then, leveled off in a narrow declining – under satellite measurements. Under 'fiddled' surface data, they essentially show that they're static, but that data is 'fiddled' and then they select the statisticians to give the story they want. [Michael] Like many other skeptics of man-made climate change Piers emphasizes the importance of the Sun's influence on climate and weather. [Piers] The Sun and the Earth are connected by various channels of communication – obviously, there's gravitation and the orbit of the Earth around the Sun but, the main energy transfer is from radiation, and also particles beamed out of the Sun – charged particles.

The radiation of sunlight then, obviously, gives us general temperature of the globe. The way the globe works though, is that it's a magnetic body and the Sun is also magnetic body, and the particles coming out of the Sun are charged particles. So, they are guided by the magnetic fields connecting the Earth and the Sun. These rush of particles, called the 'solar wind' (which come at a million mph), does affect the upper atmosphere when a lot of electric currents going on very high up, and also, the middle atmosphere where the particles, in some respects, probably initiate droplet formation, or they affect the way the circulation of the upper atmosphere, that affects the way the jet stream, which is the upper air that moving around the globe, and that will affect that. And, the jet stream then essentially controls weather patterns, so the basic point we make is, that the Sun-Earth magnetic and particle connection essentially governs the behavior of the jet stream, which is the main governor of weather types and the arbiter of weather extremes. What we have is, the jet stream essentially marks the boundary between colder polar air and warmer air towards the equator.

And, under the 'global warmers' prediction, the jet stream should be further north and shorter, and generally will have warmth but, generally benign. However, what we do have instead is a longer jet stream, which is further south, and it's got a lot of waves in it – and, these are characteristic of periods of low solar activity. So, these wavy patterns mean that sometimes you can have very warm parts of the north wind, where warm air is brought from the tropics and above, more often, because it's generally further south (this jetstream), you have cold blasts coming from a long way north, going south. And that is what's giving these extreme cold spells in places, extreme warm spells in places and extreme storms where were these type of air masses meet. [Michael] We asked Piers what he thinks of the notion that human activity is causing an increase in extreme weather on Earth, such as hurricanes. [Piers] It is a complete, deliberate lie, and it is put about by these people who know it's a lie. The fact is, there's actually been less hurricanes – some of them have been very extreme, though.

But, there's been less hurricanes in the USA which is the best place in the world where they are counted. All of these extremes that have happened are driven by solar activity. As an example, one of the ones the 'warmists' quote most is the typhoon Haiyan. It caused a lot of damage, so because there was a lot of damage they said it must be CO2. Well, if you looked at what was actually happening to Haiyan, as it was approaching the Philippines, it so occurred that the Sun was in a very active short phase of solar flares and so on. And, we'd categorize these (we predict these phases) and this is called an R5 period (a red 5, red weather or dangerous weather top level 5). And, during these periods typhoons, or tropical cyclones, always get more excited.

As it so happened, Haiyan was in the right place at right time – or, if you like, the wrong place at the wrong time – for solar effects to whack it up and it got ramped up as it approached the Philippines, and cause utter devastation. And, that was predictable. Well, we've got a general prediction which we made some years ago but, because of the wild jet stream era we're in (which, of course, is also a mini ice age period in the sense that if you were at the right end of these wavy jet streams, then you're going to get very cold weather). So, we're in a mini ice age/wild jet stream era which means there will be a lot of dramatic extremes in the world, especially in America, where you can see them from one side to the other. So, it might be very warm in the southwest and cold in the Northeast, and on some occasions, the other way around.

For continuous updates on Space News from the Electric Universe stay tuned to Thunderbolts.info.

Jim Inhofe – Global Warming Debate

Rob McClendon: Now while there may be some consensus over global warming in the scientific community, in the halls of congress the debate itself is getting pretty heated. Oklahoma Senator, Jim Inhofe, is an outspoken opponent of the Kyoto Agreement that would limit the amount of greenhouse gases the U S could emit. In fact, last fall, as the Senate debated a bill that would have created regulations to combat global warming, Senator Inhofe led the opposition, and went so far as to call global warming a hoax. I sat down with him earlier this week to find out why he feels so strongly about the global warming debate and its threat to our economy. Senator, we hear a lot about global warming these days, but you like to use the word climate change. Why is that? Senator Inhofe: Well, first of all, the liberals like to use climate change just in case they’re wrong and it ends up getting cooler.

Climate change and global warming are actually synonymous. The whole idea is that the alarmists, and I call them the alarmists, the same ones who said back in 1975 that an ice age was coming and we were all going to die, they contend that the weather is getting warmer, and it has since the turn of the century, and that’s due to anthropogenic gases, or manmade gases, CO2, methane, and that kind of thing. So really, you could use the term synonymously. Rob: Now, much of the world is critical of the U S, for not doing more. What would you say to those critics that criticize the U S? Inhofe: Well, I say first of all, that this has been an orchestrated event started by the United Nations back in the late 90s to make people, using scare tactics, think that global warming is coming and all kinds of bad things are going to happen to us. So, when I became chairman of the environment and public works committee three and a half years ago, I thought, let me find out. If it’s going to cost this much money to sign the Kyoto Treaty, as the Horton School of Economics, the Horton Econometric Survey stated, then let’s make sure the science is right, only to find out that almost all of science since 1999 has refuted what one man, Michael Mann, said about the hockey stick.

Remember the thing with the hockey stick?, where he plotted out the temperatures from about third century to the 20th century, then all of a sudden, they started getting warmer? What he forgot to do, he neglected to do, intentionally, I think, was put in the medieval warming period, when temperatures were warmer than they are today. That was around 800 to 1200 AD. Then we went into the little ice age, and came out of that around the turn of the century. Now, if they really believe that there’s a relationship between CO2 and climate change, then how can they explain the fact that the largest emission of CO2 in recorded history occurred in the middle and late 40s, and that precipitated a cooling period, SO SEVERE, that the same magazines like, TIME magazine, who is now trying to scare people into thinking that all the ice is melting and all that, they were writing articles that another ice age is coming and we’re all going to die.

So, the thing has been, well orchestrated, and when I became chairman of this committee I thought, why are politicians so afraid of the environmental extremists? And the answer, I guess, a lot of it is, they’re the ones who pump the money into the campaigns. Rob: Let’s talk economics then. If the U S did adhere to the Kyoto standard, do you think that would make our country vulnerable to other economies that maybe weren’t adhering to it? Inhofe: Well, first of all, we know that China is not going to do it. We know that India is not going to do it. And so if we did it according to the Econometric Survey that Horton put on, that would cost the average family of four 2,750 dollars a year. It would increase the cost of our energy. It would be, almost, economic destruction of our nation.

Would the other countries that are competing with us do it? NO! They wouldn’t do it. China’s not going to do it; they’ve never indicated that they would do it. India’s not doing it. So, it wouldn’t put us in a less competitive position with other countries. Now, let’s keep in mind also, of these some 17 nations in Western Europe, only two have met their Kyoto standards. So, you know, they’re not doing it anyway. Rob: Despite what we hear, both sides of the debate, would it not be prudent, to control the level of CO2, in some way, in the United States? Inhofe: Well, if they can show scientifically that there is a problem with it, then I’d say go ahead and do it. But science is now showing that there’s not a relationship between manmade gases or CO2 and climate change. For that reason, the only justification for using it, is if they can make things more economical, and just the reverse is true. So, I would probably say, no.

Let’s keep in mind, these countries, who signed on to the Kyoto Treaty early on, like Canada, they’re now reexamining their positions. In the 60s, scientists in Canada, are now petitioning Prime Minister Harper to re look at perhaps getting out, since the science is showing that the relationship between CO2 and climate change doesn’t seem to exist..

Just how long have we known about climate change anyways?

– Global warming, climate change, whatever people are calling it these days, it hasn't been around for that long, right? (ding) Well actually, a fascinating international cast of characters has been studying our planet's climate for almost 200 years. It started back in the 1820s with a smart French mathematician called Joseph Fourier. He figured out that, according to basic physics, our planet should be a lot colder than it is now, about 60 degrees Fahrenheit or more than 30 degrees Celsius colder. So why isn't it? Some 30 years later a smart American woman gave him the answer. In the 1850s, Eunice Foote, ran experiments to show that our planet has a natural blanket built into the atmosphere. This blanket is made up of heat trapping gases like carbon dioxide and methane and water vapor. The sun shines down and a great deal of it's energy goes right through that invisible blanket. The sun's energy hits the earth and the earth heats up and gives out heat energy.

But guess what? Just like a blanket traps our body heat on a cold night, this natural blanket traps the earth's heat keeping us, again, almost 60 degrees warmer than we would be otherwise. If it weren't for this amazing natural blanket, our planet would be a frozen ball of ice. Burr. But it didn't take too long for our next science hero, an impressively bearded Irish physicist named John Tyndall to grasp the stunning implication's of Eunice's work. Human activities can affect the thickness of this blanket. Specifically by digging coal and oil and natural gas out of the ground and burning it, we are pumping massive extra amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, carbon that would otherwise stay buried in the ground for millions of years. And what does a thicker blanket do? Well, of course, it traps more heat. How much more? In the 1890s, a mustached Swedish scientist named Svante Arrhenius calculated how much the earth would warm if we doubled or tripled the thickness of the extra carbon blanket in the atmosphere. His numbers were amazingly similar to what we get from our biggest, most modern super computers today.

But he did it using a pen and paper, 120 years ago. Here's the thing though, we know that climate has changed in the past when there weren't any humans around. Anyone who's watched the Ice Age movies or seen a documentary about a woolly mammoth knows that. So what was going on way back then? How do we know we're not just getting warmer after the last Ice Age? A Serbian engineer called Milutin Milankovitch answered that one. He originally studied concrete of all things. But during World War I, he was arrested simply for being a Serb and he got out of the prison camp on the condition that he would keep his nose in the books for the rest of the war. He decided to study the Ice Ages. And after going back some 600,000 years in his calculations, he figured out that they are caused by changes in the shape of the earth's orbit around the sun and by the tilt of the axis. Overtime, these cycles caused the great continental ice sheets to expand and retreat.

So how do we know that's not what's happening right now? Because the warming after the last Ice Age peaked 8000 years ago. That's right. According to Milankovitch's cycles, we should be gradually sliding into the next Ice Age over the next few thousand years. That was supposed to be the next event on our geologic calendar. But that long slow slide came to a screeching halt when the Industrial Revolution kicked off and we started burning all that coal, oil and gas to heat our homes and power our factories and eventually even run our cars. Don't get me wrong, I actually think a little warming is a good thing. No one wants to end up in another Ice Age, that would be terrible. We want a nice stable climate. But today, we've unleashed so much carbon that we are way past that stable climate. The earth has already warmed about one degree Fahrenheit or about .6 degrees Celsius.

And over the rest of this century we could see a total warming of anywhere from 1-1/2 up to eight degrees Celsius or three up to 15 degrees Fahrenheit depending on the energy choices that we make that will affect the thickness of our planet's blanket in the future. With that much warming, we're heading into unknown territory. Unknown that is since the time of the dinosaurs when there weren't any ice sheets, when sea level was more than 300 feet higher than today and when the land where 1/3 of the people on this planet currently live, would have been under water. And that in a nutshell is one of the biggest reasons we care about climate change. Because our human society is not built to deal with it. We've known about this climate change thing for a really long time.

(ding) Thank you for watching Global Weirding. Be sure to go to globalweirdingseries.com every other Wednesday so you don't miss the new episode. You can subscribe to our YouTube channel, you can like us on Facebook and you can follow me on Twitter. We'll have a live discussion on both platforms after each new episode, Wednesdays at seven central. See ya next time. (slow upbeat music).