Archive for the ‘ Global Cooling ’ Category

February 13, 2013

Shocking Alien Fears Force Pope From Office

By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers

 

A stunning Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) report prepared for President Putin, which is circulating in the Kremlin today, states that Pope Benedict XVI was forced to resign this past week over Catholic Church fears that this 85-year-old leader of over 1 billion Christians was “mentally and physically unprepared” to deal with the coming revelation about the truth of alien beings.

In our 22 January report, Russia Orders Obama: Tell World About Aliens, Or We Will, we detailed how the issue of extraterrestrial beings was brought to the forefront of the World Economic Forum (WEF) with the naming in their 2013 Executive Summary of the danger posed to our world over the discovery of alien life with their stating: “Proof of life elsewhere in the universe could have profound psychological implications for human belief systems.”

Also noted in our previous report were Prime Minister Medvedev’s 7 December 2012 off-air comments to reporters which were recorded and wherein he stated: “Along with the briefcase with nuclear codes, the president of the country is given a special ‘top secret’ folder. This folder in its entirety contains information about aliens who visited our planet… Along with this, you are given a report of the absolutely secret special service that exercises control over aliens on the territory of our country… More detailed information on this topic you can get from a well-known movie called Men In Black… I will not tell you how many of them are among us because it may cause panic.”

Spurring Pope Benedict XVI to become the first leader of the Catholic Church to resign in nearly 600 years, this MFA report says, was the appearance over Los Cristianos, Spain on 21 August 2011 of the long prophesized “bird of prey” interplanetary spacecraft, and which was followed nearly 3 weeks ago with a fleet of them appearing in the skies over Mexico City.

To fully understand the significance of these “bird of prey” UFO’s, this report continues, files relating to the 27 September 1989 Voronezh Incident must be studied in length, especially as it relates to the “messages” delivered to eyewitnesses from the “giants”.

In an 11 October 1989 New York Times article about the Voronezh Incident titled U.F.O. Landing Is Fact, Not Fantasy, the Russians Insist it says:

“It is not a joke, nor a hoax, nor a sign of mental instability, nor an attempt to drum up local tourism by drawing the curious, the Soviet press agency Tass insisted today in discussions of what it called an extraterrestrial visit to southern Russia.

Residents of the city of Voronezh insisted today that lanky, three-eyed extraterrestrial creatures had indeed landed in a local park and gone for a stroll and that a seemingly fantastic report about the event carried Monday by the official press agency Tass was absolutely true.

The three-eyed creature, about nine feet tall and fashionably dressed in silvery overalls and bronze boots and with a disk on its chest, disappeared, then landed and came out for a promenade with a companion and a robot.

The aliens seemed to communicate with each other, producing the mysterious appearance of a shining triangle, and activated the robot with a touch.”

Regarding these “messages” from the Voronezh “giants”, this MFA report says, was the warning to human beings that when these “bird of prey” UFO’s descend upon Earth the whole planet will be in peril.

The Voronezh “giants” further related, this report says, that the alien beings associated with these “bird of prey” UFO’s were the cause of the 14 April 1561 massive “sky battle” over Nuremberg, Germany which was depicted in a famous 16th century woodcut by Hans Glaser [photo 3rd left] and described by the residents as: “A very frightful spectacle.” “The sky appeared to fill with cylindrical objects from which red, black, orange and blue white disks and globes emerged. Crosses and tubes resembling cannon barrels also appeared whereupon the objects promptly began to fight one another.”

Important to note is that the Catholic Christian faith headed by Pope Benedict XVI, as well as nearly every other religion on Earth, all prophesize in their teachings a time when the “gods” will return to our planet and engage in a battle that could very well bring our entire planet to the brink of destruction.

Equally important to note about Pope Benedict XVI’s shock resignation is how it eerily compares with Saint Malachy, who as an Irish saint and Archbishop of Armagh, in the 12th Century, received a vision of 112 Popes later attributed to the apocalyptic list of Prophecy of the Popes. He was the first Irish saint to be canonized by Pope Clement III in 1199.

American authors Tom Horn and Cris Putnam in their 2012 book “Petrus Romanus: The Final Pope is Here” about Saint Malachy’s prophecies told interviewers last Spring that Pope Benedict XVI would resign by late 2012, or early 2013, and described the next Pope to follow as “Petrus Romanus,” or “Peter the Roman,” writing: “In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church there will reign Peter the Roman, who will feed his flock among many tribulations; after which the seven-hilled city will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people.”

Though the masses of people reading of the things this report contains will, undoubtedly, ridicule them, the same cannot be said of the elite moneyed classes who, even at this writing, are protecting themselves from “something” at such a fever-pitched pace it is destabilizing the entire global economy, and as exampled by the highly respected Zero Hedge news service in their article titled “What Do They Know That We Don’t?” and which, in part, says:

“Friday evening when no one was supposed to pay attention, Google announced that Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt would sell 3.2 million of his Google shares in 2013, 42% of the 7.6 million shares he owned at the end of last year—after having already sold 1.8 million shares in 2012. But why would he sell 5 million shares, about 53% of his holdings, with Google stock trading near its all-time high?

“Part of his long-term strategy for individual asset diversification and liquidity,” Google mollified us, according to the Wall Street Journal. Soothing words. Nothing but “a routine diversification of assets.”

Routine? He didn’t sell any in 2008 as the market was crashing. He didn’t sell at the bottom in early 2009. And he didn’t sell during the rest of 2009 as Google shares were soaring, nor in 2010, as they continued to soar. In 2011, he eased out of about 300,000 shares, a mere rounding error in his holdings. But in 2012, he opened the valves, and in 2013, he’d open the floodgates. So it’s not “routine.”

Mr. Schmidt isn’t alone. Corporate insiders were “aggressively selling their shares,” reported Mark Hulbert. And they were doing so “at an alarming pace.” The buy sell-to-buy ratio had risen to 9.2-to-1; insiders had sold over 9 times as many shares as they’d bought. They’d been aggressive sellers for weeks.

Instantly, soothing voices were heard: “don’t be alarmed,” they said. But Mr. Schmidt and his colleagues at the top of corporate America, multi-billionaires many of them, are immensely well connected, not only to each other but also to the Fed, whose twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks they own and control.”

To why Google Chairman Schmidt did not attend this years World Economic Forum, where the danger of aliens was being discussed, opting instead for a visit to North Korea (who announced yesterday that they had exploded another nuclear weapon) and when coupled with the information contained in this MFA report, is far from being “soothing”, and is, instead, something well all should be very alarmed about as the end is much nearer than the beginning as those with “eyes to see” and “ears to hear” already know.

February 13, 2012 © EU and US all rights reserved. Permission to use this report in its entirety is granted under the condition it is linked back to its original source at WhatDoesItMean.Com. Freebase content licensed under CC-BY and GFDL.

[Ed. Note: Western governments and their intelligence services actively campaign against the information found in these reports so as not to alarm their citizens about the many catastrophic Earth changes and events to come, a stance that the Sisters of Sorcha Faal strongly disagrees with in believing that it is every human beings right to know the truth. Due to our missions conflicts with that of those governments, the responses of their ‘agents’ against us has been a longstanding misinformation/misdirection campaign designed to discredit and which is addressed in the report “Who Is Sorcha Faal?”.]

You May Already Be To Late…But It Has Begun!

They Are Going To Come For You…Why Are You Helping Them?

Source: Shocking Alien Fears Force Pope From Office

“Remember, our nonviolent ETI from the contiguous universe are helping us bring zero point energy to Earth,” Podesta was told. “They will not tolerate any forms of military violence on Earth or in space.” The reference to ETI – extraterrestrial intelligence – set off alarm bells. So did mention of zero point energy, which its fans claim could be harnessed as an inexhaustible power supply.

How aliens and Apollo astronaut Edgar Mitchell got tangled up in WikiLeaks emails

Edgar Mitchell and Alan Shepard
Edgar Mitchell and Alan Shepard
Galatians 1:8 (NKJV) 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
Image result
Image result
Image result

WikiLeaks’ purloined emails cover a wide range of issues that were handled by Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, in them are clear references to issues that have to do with E.T., alien energy sources and Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell’s efforts to educate the public (DISCLOSURE) about Aliens from outer space before he died.

While GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump focused his fire on what the WikiLeaks file had to say about Clinton’s Wall Street speeches as a way to distract the public from the larger issue, UFO fans dwelled on what Mitchell was telling Podesta as he made the transition from the Obama White House to the Clinton campaign in 2015.

In an email from January of that year, Mitchell asked for an urgent meeting with Podesta about “(DISCLOSURE) and zero point energy,” and promised that a colleague named Terri Mansfield would “bring us up to date on the Vatican’s awareness of ETI.”

Mitchell sent another plea via email that August.

“Remember, our nonviolent ETI from the contiguous universe are helping us bring zero point energy to Earth,” Podesta was told. “They will not tolerate any forms of military violence on Earth or in space.”

The reference to ETI – extraterrestrial intelligence – set off alarm bells. So did mention of zero point energy, which its fans claim could be harnessed as an inexhaustible power supply.

“Hillary Clinton Leaked E-Mails Reveal Shocking Discussions on SPACE WARS, UFOs and ETs,” one of the more breathless (and search-optimized) headlines read.

But in fact, Mitchell never met with Clinton – or with Podesta, for that matter. “The meeting with Podesta, sadly, never took place,” Carol Rosin, one of Mitchell’s longtime collaborators, told GeekWire today in an email.

Rosin and Mansfield confirmed that Mitchell was indeed the author of the two emails, even though they went out via Mansfield’s email address, terribillionairs@aol.com. They said they worked with an aide to Podesta in hopes of arranging a meeting with him to discuss a treaty to ban weapons in outer space.

Rosin noted that Mitchell and Podesta shared an interest in extraterrestrial (DISCLOSURE).

“As you know, Dr. Mitchell was courageously educating people about the fact that ‘we are not alone,’ that there is no evidence of there being any hostile ETs here or coming to control, intervene or harm us, that we can have zero point energy, that there are no weapons based in space and that this is the unique time in history when our leaders can sign and ratify the ‘Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space’ that has been introduced by the leaders of Russia and China,” Rosin said.

So, what about Podesta? When he left the White House in February 2015, he said in a tweet that his biggest regret of the previous year was “once again not securing the disclosure of the UFO files.”

“I’ve talked to Hillary about that,” Podesta told KLAS-TV this March during a campaign stop in Las Vegas. “There are still classified files that could be declassified.”

Podesta hasn’t discussed what might be in those files, but Clinton has vowed to “get to the bottom” of any mystery that still surrounds the UFO phenomenon.

Two other emails in WikiLeaks’ Podesta file were sent by Tom DeLonge, a veteran of the rock band Blink-182. Those emails refer to a UFO-related documentary project – perhaps the “Sekret Machines” multimedia project that DeLonge kicked off this year.

In an email from last October, DeLonge told Podesta that he’s “the one who interviewed you for that special documentary,” relating to “our sensitive topic.” In the other email, sent this January, DeLonge referred to Air Force Maj. Gen. William McCasland in connection with the 1947 Roswell UFO incident.

Roswell was of interest to Mitchell as well. When I interviewed him in 2014, he acknowledged that he relied on the claims that others have made about Roswell and other UFO sightings. That secondhand perspective also probably applies to Mitchell’s reference to the Vatican connection.

Even if Clinton (or Trump) comes across new revelations, it’ll be too late for Mitchell. He passed away this February at the age of 85. Nevertheless, there may yet be more to come from the late moonwalker. “The book Edgar and I wrote decades ago will soon be published,” Rosin said in her email.

Remember when they come:

Image result

More from GeekWire:

Source: How aliens and Apollo astronaut Edgar Mitchell got tangled up in WikiLeaks emails

Solar Physicists finally get the message: Landscheidt was right after all Posted: June 14, 2011 by tallbloke in Astrophysics, climate, Solar physics, solar system dynamics After years of pooh poohing Theodor Landscheidt’s methods, work and predictions, mainstream solar physics has made an announcement of the strong possibility of a protracted solar minimum with consequences for Earth’s climate. At a workshop in New Mexico today, the AAS brought the work of Livingstone and Penn into the spotlight and

Source: Solar Physicists finally get the message: Landscheidt was right after all | Tallbloke’s Talkshop

Carl Smith in 2007 using JPL data and his own programming skills plotted the Angular Momentum of the Sun. This graph I believe is the Rosetta stone of solar science.

Carl’s original graph did not have the green arrows, but instead he displayed red arrows when the curve reached zero. (both Carl & Landscheidt concentrated on the negative angular momentum as the graph goes through zero). Link to Carl’s original article HERE.. The solar disturbances occurring at the green arrows is a new discovery quite different to the Landscheidt theory. Carbon 14 graph from Wiki showing correlation with Carl’s graph. Green squares corresponding with the green arrows.Carl’s Graph was produced in 2007. Around 12 months later I stumbled on his graph while doing some ENSO research and noticed the “camel shaped humps” at the green arrows (green arrows added later), this is the point of divergence and the beginning of my research.The humps or disturbance to the normal pattern also looked to line up very accurately with prior slowdowns of the Sun for the last 400 years. I later discovered this to be true for the last 6000 years. By studying the shape of the hump and measuring the Saturn angle we can now also quantify the severity of the solar downturn which lines up with the 11000 yr 14C (solar proxy) records in timing and strength, I call these humps the AMP event which stands for Angular Momentum Perturbation. Further research established another correlation, I checked the planetary position at the point of disturbance and noticed a recurring pattern. Every time there is a disturbance on Carl’s graph we have the same planetary position. This position is Neptune, Uranus and Jupiter together with Saturn opposing, this only happens on a cycle around 172 years average, which now laid the foundation for solar modulation planning. In addition it also became obvious that Angular Momentum (AM) was responsible for the strength of the solar cycle, the AM curve very closely matches the sunspot curve which now allows us easily to predict modulation strength for the next 200 years and more. The AM graphs serve as a marker and AM is not a driver in itself, the background forces are gravity, rotation, torque and velocity. There is one fact that cannot be argued against, the position of the planets as just described radically changes the path of the Sun around the Solar System Barycenter (SSB), this also coincides with all solar slowdowns. Only this planetary position can cause this radical path change.The oncoming Grand Minimum will prove Carl’s graph is the key to solar activity, which will radically change the solar scientific arena. It will take time for Angular Momentum Theory (AMT) to take hold, but the house of cards of the last 50 years of solar science will eventually crumble, showing us all how little we really know.Below is a new version of Carl’s graph that uses different data that slightly enhances the AMP events at the green arrows. Click on the image for a full size view.Be sure to visit our sister site that has more new research in the Planetary Realm along with a full archive of Dr. Landscheidt’s & Carl Smith’s work http://landscheidt.wordpress.com/Dont forget to vote on “who’s name should be on the next grand minimum” in the poll link at the top.___________________________________________________________________________________________________Addition Keystone graphs produced after paper publication:solar powerwave3 prongs grand minima 18 comments

Source: Beyond Landscheidt…. | Planetary Theory Moves to the Next Level

Human-made climate change is, by its nature, difficult for the average person to witness since it is a fabricated lie by the ultra rich as a method to tax and corral the unwashed masses.

Even if you lived for a century, you may not physically notice two extra degrees of warmth or have the capacity to monitor sea-level rise as it creeps, inch by inch, up a beach. An individual person certainly will not measure the pull of Jupiter on the sun causing the cycles we call solar cycles.

But…  fucking morons aside…  that can not figure out cause and effect without the boob tube telling them what is the cause and what is the effect…..

like:

The  climate modelers at the University of Idaho and Columbia University’s Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO). The researchers found – human-made — anthropogenic — climate change doubled the expansion of forest fires in the western United States over the last 36 years. The hardest-hit locations include places in the Pacific Northwest, such as the Cascade Mountains in eastern Oregon and eastern Washington, and the northern Rocky Mountain territories that cross Idaho, Montana and Wyoming.

It appears that findings like this help attract funding for folks that want to stay in universities instead of venturing out into the world and producing something of value in a competitive environment.  Or is it just me….

No, No there are those with a different view.  Just look up Landsheidt cycles and really spend some time with what the chart below is telling you.  It is telling you we may now be able to predict the future.

The latest sunspot number progression plot

 

Source: Without human-made climate change, U.S. forest fires would be half the size | PBS NewsHour

Source: Next Big Future: Current Review of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions aka Cold Fusion by the US Naval Sea Systems Command

For a number of years now, climate change skeptics have argued that there’s a key part of the Earth’s climate system that upends our expectations about global warming, and that is showing trends that actually cut in the opposite direction.

This contrary indicator is the sea ice that rings the Antarctic continent, and that reached a new all-time record extent of  7.78 million square miles in September 2014 (see above). As that record suggests, this vast field of ice has been expanding in recent years, rather than shrinking.

That means it’s doing the opposite of what is happening in the Arctic, where sea ice is declining rapidly — and also that it’s doing the opposite of what we might expect in a warming world.

Scientists don’t understand why Antarctic sea ice is growing — and to cover their butts suggested explanations have posited more glacial melt dumping cold fresh water into the surrounding seas, or the way the Antarctic ozone hole has changed the circulation of winds around the continent. In a new study in Nature Geoscience, though, researchers with the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo., along with colleagues from the University of Washington in Seattle and Australia, suggest that the phenomenon is simply the result of natural variability of the climate system — driven, in this case, by changes in the tropical Pacific Ocean that reverberate globally.

“When you get changes in [sea surface temperatures] in some areas of the tropics, you affect precipitation, that affects the amount of energy released in the atmosphere,” said Gerald Meehl, the study’s lead author and a climate scientist with NCAR. “That starts affecting, through this kind of chain reaction process, circulation at great distances away.”

The new study confirms that the ice floating around Antarctica has been expanding — indeed, the expansion has accelerated since around the turn of the century.

That’s also around the time that a cycle dubbed the “Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation,” or IPO, shifted into a negative phase, which is characterized by ocean surface cooling in the tropical Pacific, and particularly its eastern part around the equator.

This is the same phenomenon that, scientists such as Meehl believe, helped fuel a global warming “slowdown” or “hiatus” during the 2000s (see also here). Heat was in effect buried deep below the surface of the Pacific Ocean, rather than bursting forth and influencing the globe, during this period.

But what’s new in the latest study is the suggestion that this negative IPO phase had consequences that stretched all the way to the Southern Ocean waters surrounding Antarctica — and that this, in turn, explains why most climate models didn’t predict the observed growth of Antarctic sea ice.

Most of the state-of-the-art climate change model simulations run to help support the 2013 report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change did not capture the growth of Antarctic sea ice that has occurred of late. Rather, the average of these models suggested that this ice should decline. This shows that skeptics who have cited the growing ice are raising a serious concern — this anomaly really does cry out for an explanation.

But the new study finds that in the small minority of climate change simulations that do happen to correctly capture these natural changes in the Pacific, and the global warming “slowdown” to boot, there is also growth in Antarctic sea ice. These are the models, it appears, that happened to get the role of natural variability in the Pacific right — or more specifically, to get the timing right for a phase shift in this ocean.

Out of “262 realizations of 2oth century climate, 10 of those got this observed slowdown of global warming happening at about the same time as in the observations, at the same magnitude,” Meehl said. “And for those 10, there was the negative phase of the IPO, and it also has the signature of Antarctic sea ice.”

But how could a naturally occurring climate wobble in the tropical Pacific Ocean translate into more Antarctic sea ice?

Here, the research suggests the key factor is how the state of that ocean in turn influences an Antarctic atmospheric phenomenon called the Amundsen Sea Low, a low-pressure region off the Antarctic coast that lies more or less directly south of the tropical Pacific.

This low-pressure region deepens (or sees its pressure drop even further) in negative IPO conditions, the study finds, which drive cooler seas in the eastern tropical Pacific. As this shift reverberates across the globe, it in turn means that down in Antarctica, winds increase in force around the area of low pressure at the center of the Amundsen Sea Low (winds blow inward toward regions of lower pressure). These stronger winds, in turn, push sea ice outward and away from the Antarctic continent, which leaves room for more ice to form in the gaps that are created — and increases the extent of sea ice overall.

“The dramatic decrease in Arctic sea ice, which currently exceeds model predictions and could exhibit a record or near-record low this year, is fairly straightforward to understand in terms of the unprecedented warming in the Arctic,” Michael Mann, a climate researcher at Penn State University, said in an email in response to Meehl’s study.

“By contrast, Antarctic sea ice is more complicated. It is dominated by what we refer to as ‘dynamical effects,’ especially the strength and position of the westerly winds over the southern ocean. Those dynamical effects are governed to a large extent by natural, internal climate variability, and it is unsurprising that the very modest increase in Antarctic sea ice in recent decades can be explained in terms of them.”

Granted, the precise causes behind the recent growth in Antarctic sea ice probably will be debated for some time. After all, there is much that scientists still don’t understand about this enormous but exceedingly remote region. Recent research continues to make new discoveries about why ice floating atop the southern ocean behaves in the way it does, for instance, and even about how it helps drive the circulation of ocean waters in the region, and therefore, around the world.

As for the future, Meehl says he thinks that the IPO has now turned back, and doesn’t think Antarctic sea ice will keep expanding in the same way. Notably, the ice did not continue its streak of breaking records in 2015. “Averaged over the next 5 to 10 years, if this is all correct, this increase in Antarctic sea ice extent would stop growing, maybe start shrinking a little bit,” he said.

For now, though, the new research suggests that two phenomena that have furnished some of the most popular arguments among climate change skeptics and doubters in the past several years — growing Antarctic sea ice, and a global warming slowdown or “hiatus” during the 2000s — can perhaps both be chalked up to simple natural climate variability, superimposed on top of a global warming trend.

Content from IBM Power SystemsWhy data is “the new natural resource”

We can use it to make faster, smarter decisions.

And if that’s right, it means that despite heated debate over both of these matters, neither manages to dent — at all — the main message about ongoing global warming.

New research on Antarctic sea ice undermines a favorite climate skeptic talking point.

Source: This new Antarctica study is bad news for climate change doubters – The Washington Post

Encinitas in 2013 passed Proposition A, which mandates that voters must weigh in on any land-use changes in the city. Meanwhile, every city in California is required to update its housing element, a plan that shows how it will meet the growing demand for housing, every four years

But now AGENDA 21 is coming to town just like in every city in the USA.  Crowding is required while land on the outskirts is devalued and forced into non use by environmentalists.

The prospect of building more homes is unpopular in all crowded communities, Encinitas included. Yet the city needs to demonstrate where it can build 1,200 housing units, its share of regional growth expectations.

Encinitas is now in a tough legal position. Local voters could reject the city’s plan to accommodate new housing – a plan required by state law.

”The court might very well say, ‘I don’t know that Prop. A is legal when it tries to stand in the way of something that you’re required by law to do,” Durkee said. “But if you can make it work, and you can secure (voter) support, then I don’t have a problem with you having done that, because it’s an issue that took care of itself.”

Legal trouble over housing law is nothing new for Encinitas. Developer David Meyers is already suing the cityit for not implementing a separate state law that lets developers build more homes on a property if the project includes low-income homes.

Meyers has now amended his lawsuit to include the discrepancy between Prop. A and the state’s housing element law.

Prop. A can’t keep the city from making good on a state requirement, he argues.

“You need to get it done, and you don’t need a vote of the people,” Meyers said. “You could have a vote, but it would only be advisory.”

Specifically, Meyers contends that state mandates trump local initiatives, like Prop. A.

Encinitas already abandoned one attempt to meet the mandate before a 2013 deadline, over dissatisfaction with specific areas a consultant suggested could be targeted for new development. It’s the only city in the county, and one of a few in the state, without a legal housing plan.

Missing that deadline exposed the city to lawsuits. In 2015, Encinitas settled a lawsuit with the Building Industry Association, which said the city needed to put an update on the November 2016 ballot, or give up its authority to issue building permits.

Meyers didn’t agree with the settlement. Putting the housing element to voter approval is as good as ignoring state law, he said.

“Do I think if it’s subject to voter approval it has a prayer? No, it doesn’t have a prayer,” Meyers said.

At one point, city staff proposed exempting housing element updates from the city’s requirement for voter approval. Staff removed that language after hearing from residents.

“The former draft zoning standards and land use element did suggest an exception to the voter requirement, and it did at one time suggest at one time that a supermajority of Council could make subsequent amendments without the need to go to a vote of the people,” planner Michael Strong said at a June 15 hearing.

This is the first time the city will send a housing element plan to the ballot. Two of the proposed changes in the plan are drawing widespread criticism from voters, especially those in Cardiff.

Hence, the uncertainty.

One of the unpopular changes is based on a guideline to build housing for lower-income residents more densely.

Ghettos are going to be built in Encinitas!

The second change would raise the maximum building height to three stories in certain areas, lifting a two-story limit that was established by Prop. A.

The city previously tried to get creative with solutions for providing affordable units, which would have limited the number of properties that needed the taller, denser buildings.

That was a so-called granny flat program that tried to encourage homeowners to bring illegal, additional units on their properties up to code so they would count as affordable housing. But the granny-flat idea was a flop.

Fourteen distinct sites are targeted for the new zoning in the plan that will go to voters, including one in Cardiff where the City Council removed the three-story height increase over objections from residents.

Those sites were chosen through a two-year process of community meetings and workshops, and some of the sites that were originally designated for upzoning were removed from the final map after residents protested.

Durkee, the land-use law attorney, said at the Council meeting that he’s supportive of sending the draft to voters, but it’s unlikely that a defeat at the ballot box is the end of the process.

The environmental lobby will sue them into submission.

“Ultimately, I don’t think the vote, if it’s no, will be the last, and ‘My goodness, we dodged a bullet and can go back to business as usual,’” he said.

If voters approve the plan, state housing authorities will then check that it doesn’t constrain development. Strong said state approval would also mean the city would need to update its climate action plan to be consistent with the housing element within 20 months.

That, too, could trigger another vote under Prop. A, but Strong said he believed the timeline was achievable.

Still, Meyers said a plan that can win support from development-averse voters probably isn’t one that will actually attract developers to build the new homes envisioned in the plan.

“The question is: Is the (plan) that’s being pushed capable of being built at the density they’re proposing,” he said. “I have great doubt.”

Soylent green is going to be made of people…..

This article relates to: Growth and Housing, Housing, Land Use

Written by Ruarri Serpa

Ruarri Serpa is a freelance writer in Oceanside. Email him at ruarris@gmail.com and find him on Twitter at @RuarriS.

Encinitas has placed itself in a tough legal position. Local voters could reject the city’s plan to accommodate new housing – a plan required by state law. Encinitas is the only city in the county, and one of a few in the state, without a legal housing plan.

Source: Encinitas’ Conundrum: Obey Its Own Law, or California Law? – Voice of San Diego

Carl Smith Provides the Rosetta Stone of Solar Science?

Carl is no longer with us, but he has certainly left us with a legacy. Back in 1965 Paul Jose was one of the first to link solar modulation with planetary movements. He discovered that the planets roughly returned to the same position every 178.8 years (My research suggests 172 yrs). Jose’s paper included a very rough solar radius graph which showed some modulation but was difficult to draw from. Later Theodor Landscheidt wrote many papers using a similar principle but mainly relied on solar torque graphs which ranged over long time periods. Theodor also focused on the zero crossings  or when the Sun returns to the centre of the solar system, which in my opinion is not the crucial stage but happens close to grand minima. Landscheidt predicted a Grand Minimum to start at 1990, peak around 2030 (the latter 2030 might be late, if the current trend continues) and extend out to 2070…Those dates are derived from the zero crossing method which incorporates an extreme in solar torque measurements.

Then Carl Smith in 2007 using JPL data and his own programming skills plotted the Angular Momentum of the Sun. This graph I believe is the Rosetta stone of solar science.

Carl’s original graph did not have the green arrows, but instead he displayed red arrows when the curve reached zero. (both Carl & Landscheidt concentrated on the negative angular momentum as the graph goes through zero). Link to Carl’s original article HERE.. The solar disturbances occurring at the green arrows is a new discovery quite different to the Landscheidt theory.

Carbon 14 graph from Wiki showing correlation with Carl’s graph. Green squares corresponding with the green arrows.

Carl’s Graph was produced in 2007. Around 12 months later I stumbled on his graph while doing some ENSO research and noticed the “camel shaped humps” at the green arrows (green arrows added later), this is the point of divergence and the beginning of my research.

The humps or disturbance to the normal pattern also looked to line up very accurately with prior slowdowns of the Sun for the last 400 years. I later discovered this to be true for the last 6000 years. By studying the shape of the hump and measuring the Saturn angle we can now also quantify the severity of the solar downturn which lines up with the 11000 yr 14C (solar proxy) records in timing and strength, I call these humps the AMP event which stands for Angular Momentum Perturbation. Further research established another correlation, I checked the planetary position at the point of disturbance and noticed a recurring pattern. Every time there is a disturbance on Carl’s graph we have the same planetary position. This position is Neptune, Uranus and Jupiter together with Saturn opposing, this only happens on a cycle around 172 years average, which now laid the foundation for solar modulation planning. In addition it also became obvious that Angular Momentum (AM) was responsible for the strength of the solar cycle, the AM curve very closely matches the sunspot curve which now allows us easily to predict modulation strength for the next 200 years and more. The AM graphs serve as a marker and AM is not a driver in itself, the background forces are gravity, rotation, torque and velocity. There is one fact that cannot be argued against, the position of the planets as just described radically changes the path of the Sun around the Solar System Barycenter (SSB), this also coincides with all solar slowdowns. Only this planetary position can cause this radical path change.

The oncoming Grand Minimum will prove Carl’s graph is the key to solar activity, which will radically change the solar scientific arena. It will take time for Angular Momentum Theory (AMT) to take hold, but the house of cards of the last 50 years of solar science will eventually crumble, showing us all how little we really know.

Below is a new version of Carl’s graph that uses different data that slightly enhances the AMP events at the green arrows. Click on the image for a full size view.

Be sure to visit our sister site that has more new research in the Planetary Realm along with a full archive of Dr. Landscheidt’s & Carl Smith’s work  http://landscheidt.wordpress.com/

Dont forget to vote on “who’s name should be on the next grand minimum” in the poll link at the top.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Addition Keystone graphs produced after paper publication:

solar powerwave

3 prongs grand minima

Source: Beyond Landscheidt…. | Planetary Theory Moves to the Next Level

Holy Crap! Global cooling is coming.

If you have no Idea what this means start with Landscheidt cycles…..

Beyond Landscheidt…. | Planetary Theory Moves to the Next …

www.landscheidt.info/
Jul 23, 2009 – Landscheidt predicted a Grand Minimum to start at 1990, peak … Momentum (AM) was responsible for the strength of the solar cycle, the AM …

A Cycles Based Approach to Understanding Solar Activity & Climate.

Scientists clarify the recent confusion

The global warming “hiatus,” a controversy that spawned congressional hearings and thousands of skeptical blog posts before being curbed last year, is back.

The “hiatus” refers to the observation that global warming has slowed in the past 15 years. The planet is still warming, but just not as quickly as some climate scientists expected it to.

The debate between researchers and doubters reached a crescendo last summer, when scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration updated their temperature records and concluded that global warming has not slowed down in the 2000s (ClimateWire, June 5, 2015).

Now, a group of prominent climate scientists are challenging NOAA’s conclusion in a commentary published this week in Nature Climate Change.

This graph shows a “slowdown” in rising temperatures until 2010. The black line shows temperatures as predicted by climate models, and the red line shows actual temperatures. Warming has recently increased, breaking historical records in 2014 and 2015.
Nature Climate Change, February 24, 2016 doi:10.1038/nclimate2938

“The interpretation [the NOAA group] made was not valid,” said John Fyfe, a climate scientist at Environment and Climate Change Canada and lead author of the commentary. “The slowdown is there, even in this new updated data set.”

The disagreement may seem esoteric, but it underpins the biggest climate disagreement of the past decades. Climate models, which are virtual representations of our planet, project that temperatures were much higher in the early 2000s than was the case in reality. Scientists have been trying to understand why.

Suggestions abound, from cooling aerosols spewed by volcanic eruptions to natural shifts in the Pacific Ocean that happen every decade.

Meanwhile, skeptics have seized on the mismatch to suggest that global warming stopped in 1998. Almost all scientists disagree with this. But there are questions about the rate of warming. Most recently, the NOAA study suggested that rising temperatures never even slowed.

Not worried about fueling skepticism

The NOAA study’s release last summer coincided with a science meeting in Colorado where scientists were discussing how to engineer models to accurately predict climate changes in the coming decades on a regional scale. To do so, they would first have to figure out why models had not projected the global warming slowdown.

With the NOAA study’s release, there was this perception that, “Oh, there’s been no slowdown in warming,” said Gerald Meehl, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a co-author of the new commentary.

The scientists decided to counter the narrative in the boxing ring of academia. That is, a science journal.

It is possible that the scientific disagreement could spill over into the skeptic blogosphere. But that is not reason enough to sweep the slowdown under the rug, said Michael Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University and a co-author.

“As scientists, we must go where the evidence takes us, we can’t allow our worries about climate contrarians and how they might seek to misrepresent our work to dictate what we do and do not publish,” he said.

The blowback against the NOAA study has been some time coming. Tom Karl, lead author of the NOAA study and director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information, and his colleagues compared warming over the past 15 years with the long-term temperature trend between 1950 and 1998 (a 48-year stretch).

But scientists say Karl’s comparison of a 15-year stretch with a 48-year stretch was somewhat arbitrary. It is meant to answer the question, has global warming stopped in the long run? The answer to that is a resounding “no,” they say.

Scientists are more interested in explaining fluctuations in global temperatures over 10- and 20-year stretches. Throughout Earth’s history, global temperatures have risen and fallen in step with natural fluctuations in the climate system that scientists are only just beginning to unravel.

Karl said that understanding this decadeslong variability is important, and his study had dealt with the long-term trend.

“There is no disagreement that there is decadal variability, and that it is real and needs to be better understood,” he said, referring to natural causes of warming.

Models ‘not perfect’

One decadal variability played out recently, when warming slowed to 0.11 degrees Celsius per decade between 2001 and 2010. The rate was 0.17 C per decade in the 15 years prior, Fyfe said.

Fyfe and his colleagues think the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), a natural variance in the climate system that switches between positive, neutral and negative phases, explains the recent slowdown.

When ocean temperatures in the tropical Pacific are warmer than usual—a positive PDO—the globe sizzles, Meehl of NCAR said.

And when the PDO flips to negative and the Pacific cools, global warming slows. The PDO was negative during the early-2000s, and this may explain the slowdown, Meehl said.

The only time the PDO was neutral in recent history was between 1971 and 2000, Fyfe said. In that case, the temperature record reflects the response to human-caused climate change, he said.

“This is the background trend that you would want to compare recent trends against,” he said.

There are other explanations for the slowdown and also for why climate models did not project it. It is possible that the world is not as sensitive to greenhouse gases as the models assume or factors that cool the planet are playing a bigger role than expected, Fyfe said.

“These models are not perfect, and they might be overly sensitive,” he said.

Answering these fundamental science questions should take precedence over worries about skeptics, Mann of Penn State said. Moreover, the slowdown is over. Record warmth occurred in 2014 and 2015.

“So we have every reason to believe that the warming of the planet and the detrimental impacts of that warming will continue unabated if we do not dramatically reduce our emissions,” Mann said.

Read More: Global Warming “Hiatus” Debate Flares Up Again

Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500

Source: Did Global Warming Slow Down in the 2000s, or Not? – Scientific American

Last December, the United States joined 194 other countries in signing the first ever agreement to address climate change. While the delegates in Paris were tinking wine glasses over the 12-page agreement, politicians in Washington were grumbling about how bad the deal was for America.

Those grumbles continued today in a hearing of the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Chaired by Lamar Smith, a Republican from Texas, the hearing offered a glimpse of how the Republicans plan to oppose the landmark climate deal.

And no surprise, it’s a basically a continuation of their arguments from the last several decades:

  1. Question the economics adapting to so called climate change,
  2. question the science and manipulation of data attempting to prove it,
  3. and question legality of President Obama’s approach to dealing with the issue.

Playing the role of “The Paris agreement is bad for business,” was Stephen Eule, Vice President for Climate and Technology, U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He began by discussing the futility of meeting the Paris agreement’s goals. “As a recent State Department report demonstrates,” he read from his prepared statement. “The US Paris pledge of a 26 percent to 28 percent reduction in net greenhouse gas emissions from the 2005 level by 2025 is completely unrealistic, and the administration still has no plan to achieve it.” Eule also talked about the billions of dollars US taxpayers would pay into funds to help poor countries mitigate the effects of climate change and develop clean energy economies.

And of course, the whole thing is a hoax anyway. Or, in the evolving language of scientific politics, “Not scientifically justifiable that this country should establish economic regulations that hit on the poorest,” says John Christy, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Alabama. In the role of “science says everything is awesome,” Christy describes himself as a scientist who builds datasets. His pride and joy is a collection of bulk temperature records taken from the Earth’s surface up to 50,000 feet above sea level.

Climate scientists use surface temperature as their go-to dataset as it is most easily manipulated — They think climate is where most of the weather affecting humans happens well below 50,000 feet. That’s 20,000 feet higher than the top of Mount Everest. So the climate scare community is critical of Cristy, because including higher altitudes averages out the extreme temperature fluctuations that affect things like arctic melting, ocean warming, and sea level rise.

But in the hallowed halls of the science committee, that kind of evidence is enough to throw into question the very theory that carbon dioxide increases air temperature. If the science ain’t there, why bother with all this pesky intergovernmental politicking and killjoy regulations?

Because it’s all a vast legal conspiracy, that’s why. Why else would the American delegation have tried so hard to keep the Paris agreement from becoming a treaty, which would have required Senate ratification? Which is exactly what it should have been, according to Steven Groves of the Heritage Foundation, as “America is the Best.” He points to a semi-obscure State Department rule called Circular 175 Procedure, which is basically a checklist that decides whether an international arrangement is a treaty (meaning it has to go through congress), or a sole executive agreement (which the president can attend to via actions like the Clean Power Plan).

Er…Groves is probably onto something here, actually. One might be able to make a case that the Paris agreement affects state sovereignty, especially if you take into account precedent in how US government officials have treated international climate agreements.

But the biggest threat comes from the compromise Obama used in lieu of that sure-to-fail senatorial ratification. The Clean Power Plan, announced last August, is an EPA rule that puts serious emissions restrictions on coal power plants. It’s under legal attack from 27 states and numerous independent groups, but many legal scholars aren’t afraid that those could succeed. The real question is what happens in November. A Republican president would almost certainly nullify the regulation, which would mean America reneges on the Paris agreement. “However, this would lead to political consequences with our allies,” Groves points out.

To balance out the Republicans’ three horsemen of climate-is-not-an-apocalypse, committee minority leader Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Democrat from Texas, invited her own witness: Andrew Steer, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute, a climate and economics think tank. Steer, an economist, focused solely on how clean energy would make a lot of people rich. In other words, the Democrats used him the same way their Republican colleagues used their own mouthpieces, to a significantly diminished effect.

In this type of setting, the minority Democrats were in a position to put the statements made by Eule, Christy, and Groves under the microscope, and failed to show any reason to doubt the scientific arguments underlying the Republican majority’s opposition on this matter.

Republicans aren’t happy about the Paris agreement, but so far their volume of their dissatisfaction has been relatively muted compared to things like Bengazi! Hillary’s emails!! and Obamacare!!! But eventually—perhaps in April, when the 196 countries officially sign the Paris agreement—the opposition will get louder.

A congressional hearing about climate change gave a glimpse of each party’s strategy with regards to climate change.

Source: The House Science Committee Thinks the Paris Climate Agreement Stinks | WIRED

32.3K5682Comment625California Gov. Jerry Brown Sends Ben Carson The Climate Evidence He Couldn’t Find”Climate change is much bigger than partisan politics.”Headshot of Dhyana TaylorDhyana TaylorPolitics Intern, The Huffington PostPosted: 09/11/2015 03:36 PM EDT | Edited: 09/11/2015 05:04 PM EDTASSOCIATED PRESSRetired neurosurgeon turned Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson received a flash drive on Thursday full of the evidence for climate change that he has apparently been looking for. California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) mailed Carson a copy of the synthesis report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), along with a letter asking Carson to utilize his “considerable intelligence” to review the material. The IPCC is the scientific body created by the United Nations Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization to provide regular assessments of the state of climate science for policymakers.Brown’s letter came after Carson asked to see the science demonstrating climate change was caused by human activity during a visit to California earlier this week. “I know there a lot of people who say ‘overwhelming science,’ but then when you ask them to show the overwhelming science, they never can show it,” Carson told The San Francisco Chronicle. “There is no overwhelming science that the things that are going on are man-caused and not naturally caused.””Gimme a break,” Carson added. Brown said the flash drive contained the “overwhelming science” Carson wanted. “These aren’t just words. The consequences are real,” Brown wrote in his letter. “Climate change is much bigger than partisan politics.” Carson, who currently places second in HuffPost Pollster’s 2016 polling, which aggregates all publicly available polls, has frequently dismissed scientific evidence of climate change. “We may be cooling. We may be warming,” Carson told Bloomberg in a November 2014 interview.The IPCC’s synthesis report concludes that human influence on the climate system “is clear and growing.” The IPCC has said that there is 95 percent certainty that human activity is the primary cause of global warming.Brown’s state is already dealing with a deep drought that scientists believe is driven at least in part by global warming, and he has become a major champion of action on the issue. During the first Republican primary debate in August, Brown sent an open letter to the candidates requesting an answer to only one question: “What is your plan to deal with the threat of climate change?” Carson’s campaign could not be immediately reached for comment.

Source: California Gov. Jerry Brown Sends Ben Carson The Climate Evidence He Couldn’t Find

In those days, California’s water supply was far more reliable than today. Gigantic water projects of reservoirs and aqueducts largely planned while Edmund Brown, Sr., was governor (father of the current governor), comfortably supplied all the water California’s population needed.Since then, California’s population has grown from about 20 million in 1970 to 39 million today — a near doubling — but infrastructure hasn’t kept up. Meanwhile, the state’s precipitation, unusually high in the early 20th century — has declined to its long-term climate norm.

Scientists studying long-ago California climate have realized that the 20th century was abnormally wet and rainy, according to researcher Lynn Ingram, professor in the Department of Earth and Planetary Science at UC Berkeley.“The past 150 years have been wetter than the past 2,000 years,” Ingram said. “And this is when our water development, population growth and agricultural industry were established.”

Ingram made the statement in a video presentation that is part of the UC California Institute for Water Resources new online video series. The series consists of presentations featuring UC and other experts speaking on topics aimed at helping farmers and all Californians better understand and cope with drought.

Precipitation during the last three years in California has been low by standards set since records were kept, which began in the late 1800s. However, the current drought appears to be well within normal fluctuations in the state’s climate, according to research by Ingram and other paleoclimatologists. A trend of gradually increasing temperature since the 1960s has been causing earlier spring snowmelt, decreased snowpack, and is predicted to cause more extreme droughts and floods.

In her 17-minute video, Ingram noted that her colleague Scott Stine of California State University East Bay found some of the first evidence of a medieval warm period in California by studying the water level of Mono Lake. The lake expands and contracts depending on the amount of runoff from the adjoining Sierra Nevada. Stine’s research reveals a dry spell from 1,800 to 600 years ago.

Ingram studies sediment cores at locations near the San Francisco Bay, which is fed by a watershed that covers 40 percent of California.

“The salinity reflects precipitation and runoff from a very large area of California,” she said. “As fresh water comes in, it mixes with salt water. Sediment records changes in salinity over time.”

Looking at the chemistry of the sediment layers and their fossil composition, she was able to tease out a record of past floods and droughts.

“There was a significant increase in salinity during the medieval warm period,” Ingram said. “Salinity increased from 15 to 22 parts per thousand in the dry period.”

The higher salinity suggests there was less fresh water flowing into the bay.

Ingram said scientists believe the current warming trend will continue into the future.

“The drier climate will increase evaporation, so drier soils, more frequent wildfires, increased dust levels,” Ingram said. “It’s also predicted that we will have more extreme climate; as the climate warms, you’re adding more energy and more water vapor in the atmosphere. That will produce larger floods and deeper droughts.”

Detailed information about California’s climate past and future may be found in a book Ingram wrote with Frances Malamud-Roam, The West without Water: What Past Floods, Droughts, and Other Climatic Clues Tell Us About Tomorrow.

Watch her talk here:

Source: Desalination, water reuse convention returns to San Diego | SanDiegoUnionTribune.com

A new model of the Sun’s solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun’s 11-year heartbeat. The model draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone. Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the ‘mini ice age’ that began in 1645.

Results will be presented today by Prof Valentina Zharkova at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno.

It is 172 years since a scientist first spotted that the Sun’s activity varies over a cycle lasting around 10 to 12 years. But every cycle is a little different and none of the models of causes to date have fully explained fluctuations. Many solar physicists have put the cause of the solar cycle down to a dynamo caused by convecting fluid deep within the Sun. Now, Zharkova and her colleagues have found that adding a second dynamo, close to the surface, completes the picture with surprising accuracy.

“We found magnetic wave components appearing in pairs, originating in two different layers in the Sun’s interior. They both have a frequency of approximately 11 years, although this frequency is slightly different, and they are offset in time. Over the cycle, the waves fluctuate between the northern and southern hemispheres of the Sun. Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97%,” said Zharkova.

Zharkova and her colleagues derived their model using a technique called ‘principal component analysis’ of the magnetic field observations from the Wilcox Solar Observatory in California. They examined three solar cycles-worth of magnetic field activity, covering the period from 1976-2008. In addition, they compared their predictions to average sunspot numbers, another strong marker of solar activity. All the predictions and observations were closely matched.

Looking ahead to the next solar cycles, the model predicts that the pair of waves become increasingly offset during Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022. During Cycle 26, which covers the decade from 2030-2040, the two waves will become exactly out of synch and this will cause a significant reduction in solar activity.

“In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other — peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun. Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other. We predict that this will lead to the properties of a ‘Maunder minimum’,” said Zharkova. “Effectively, when the waves are approximately in phase, they can show strong interaction, or resonance, and we have strong solar activity. When they are out of phase, we have solar minimums. When there is full phase separation, we have the conditions last seen during the Maunder minimum, 370 years ago.”


Story Source:

The above post is reprinted from materials provided by Royal Astronomical Society (RAS). Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

 

Solar activity predicted to fall 60% in 2030s, to ‘mini ice age’ levels: Sun driven by double dynamo — ScienceDaily.

The record temperatures we keep reading about could be a fond memory in just 15 years’ time, which is when a new mini-Ice Age will hit the planet, a group of scientists is warning.

The last “Little Ice Age,” which chilled the northern hemisphere from the year 1300 to 1870, lasted almost 600 years. The U.K. Royal Astronomical Society isn’t postulating how long the new one they predict will persist.

Their prediction has nothing whatsoever to do with the phenomenon of human-driven climate change, about which there is almost-blanket scientific consensus. It has to do with the behavior of the sun, which the team headed by Prof. Valentina Zharkova says it can now model with much greater accuracy than ever before.

The model suggests that “solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the ‘mini ice age’ that began in 1645,” they write in ScienceDaily.

The sun has a natural activity cycle lasting between ten and 12 years, but the cycles are, by nature, not identical. Yet nobody had been able to nail down the causes of fluctuations, until Zharkova and her team postulated that the sun’s activity was driven not by one dynamo, but two – one being moving plasm deep within the Sun, the other closer to the star’s surface.

They found magnetic wave components appearing in pairs, originating in two different layers in the Sun’s interior, Zharkova told Science Daily: Both have a frequency of about 11 years but are offset in time.

“Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97%,” she told the journal.

And they predict, based on the cycles’ behavior, that a new mini-Ice Age will start in 15 years, when the cycles produce a “Maunder minimum” – a period of low solar activity.

This is not good news. The last “Little Ice Age” – which was no such thing, merely a very long period of colder weather wreaked havoc on Europe and early settlers of North America, though science isn’t clear how it affected the southern hemisphere. In Europe, rivers and canals froze over and so did the usually balmy Bosphorus, for good measure. Frost-afflicted countries suffered widespread crop failure and famine. Some have even linked the travails of the era to the predilection for witch-hunting, which did not, ultimately, solve any problems at all.

 

Mini-ice age to hit Earth in 15 years, scientists warn – Nature & Environment – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Summer 2015 Forecast: Much of U.S. Could See Below-Average Temperatures – weather.com.

North Pacific Mode, is what’s causing the Pacific’s warm blob as well.

Is global climate change playing a role in the rise of the North Pacific Mode? Neither Bond nor Hartmann is willing to say. “I don’t think we know the answer,” Hartmann said. “Maybe it will go away quickly and we won’t talk about it anymore, but if it persists for a third year, then we’ll know something really unusual is going on.”

via What’s Causing Weird Weather? Blame a ‘Warm Blob’ of Water – NBC News.com.

How Growers Gamed California’s Drought

Consuming 80 percent of California’s developed water but accounting for only 2 percent of the state’s GDP, agriculture thrives while everyone else is parched.
“I’ve been smiling all the way to the bank,” said pistachio farmer John Dean at a conference hosted this month by Paramount Farms, the mega-operation owned by Stewart Resnick, a Beverly Hills billionaire known for his sprawling agricultural holdings, controversial water dealings, and millions of dollars in campaign contributions to high-powered California politicians including Governor Jerry Brown, former governors Arnold Schwarzenegger and Gray Davis, and U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein.

The record drought now entering its fourth year in California has alarmed the public, left a number of rural communities without drinking water, and triggered calls for mandatory rationing. There’s no relief in sight: The winter rainy season, which was a bust again this year, officially ends on April 15. Nevertheless, some large-scale farmers are enjoying extraordinary profits despite the drought, thanks in part to infusions of what experts call dangerously under-priced water.

Resnick, whose legendary marketing flair included hiring Stephen Colbert to star in a 2014 Super Bowl commercial, told the conference that pistachios generated an average net return of $3,519 per acre in 2014, based on a record wholesale price of $3.53 a pound. Almonds, an even “thirstier” crop, averaged $1,431 per acre. Andy Anzaldo, a vice president for Resnick’s company, Wonderful Pistachios, celebrated by showing the assembled growers a clip from the movie Jerry Maguire in which Tom Cruise shouts, “Show me the money,” reported the Western Farm Press, a trade publication. At the end of the day, conference attendees filed out to the sounds of Louis Armstrong singing, “It’s a Wonderful World.”

Agriculture is the heart of California’s worsening water crisis, and the stakes extend far beyond the state’s borders. Not only is California the world’s eighth largest economy, it is an agricultural superpower. It produces roughly half of all the fruits, nuts, and vegetables consumed in the United States—and more than 90 percent of the almonds, tomatoes, strawberries, broccoli and other specialty crops—while exporting vast amounts to China and other overseas customers.

But agriculture consumes a staggering 80 percent of California’s developed water, even as it accounts for only 2 percent of the state’s gross domestic product. Most crops and livestock are produced in the Central Valley, which is, geologically speaking, a desert. The soil is very fertile but crops there can thrive only if massive amounts of irrigation water are applied.

Current pricing structures enrich a handful of interests, but they are ushering the state as a whole toward a parched and perilous future.

Although no secret, agriculture’s 80 percent share of state water use is rarely mentioned in media discussions of California’s drought. Instead, news coverage concentrates on the drought’s implications for people in cities and suburbs, which is where most journalists and their audiences live. Thus recent headlines warned that state regulators have ordered restaurants to serve water only if customers explicitly request it and directed homeowners to water lawns no more than twice a week. The San Jose Mercury News pointed out that these restrictions carry no enforcement mechanisms, but what makes them a sideshow is simple math: During a historic drought, surely the sector that’s responsible for 80 percent of water consumption—agriculture—should be the main focus of public attention and policy.

The other great unmentionable of California’s water crisis is that water is still priced more cheaply than it should be, which encourages over-consumption. “Water in California is still relatively inexpensive,” Heather Cooley, director of the water program at the world-renowned Pacific Institute in Oakland, told The Daily Beast.

One reason is that much of the state’s water is provided by federal and state agencies at prices that taxpayers subsidize. A second factor that encourages waste is the “use it or lose it” feature in California’s arcane system of water rights. Under current rules, if a property owner does not use all the water to which he is legally entitled, he relinquishes his future rights to the unused water, which may then get allocated to the next farmer in line.

Lawmakers have begun, gingerly, to reform the water system, but experts say that much remains to be done. For years, California was the only state in the arid West that set no limits on how much groundwater a property owner could extract from a private well. Thus nearly everyone and their neighbors in the Central Valley have been drilling deeper and deeper wells in recent years, seeking to offset reductions in state and federal water deliveries. This agricultural version of an arms race not only favors big corporate enterprises over smaller farmers, it threatens to collapse the aquifers whose groundwater is keeping California alive during this drought and will be needed to endure future droughts. (Groundwater supplies about 40 percent of the state’s water in years of normal precipitation but closer to 60 percent in dry years.)

Last fall, the legislature passed and Governor Brown signed a bill to regulate groundwater extraction. But the political touchiness of the issue—agricultural interests lobbied hard against it—resulted in a leisurely implementation timetable. Although communities must complete plans for sustainable water management by 2020, not until 2040 must sustainability actually be achieved. The Central Valley could be a dust bowl by then under current trends.

There are practical solutions to California’s drought, but the lack of realistic water prices and other incentives has slowed their adoption. A shift to more efficient irrigation methods could reduce agricultural water use by 22 percent, an amount equivalent to all the surface water Central Valley farmers lacked because of drought last year, according to an analysis that Cooley of the Pacific Institute co-authored with Robert Wilkinson, a professor at the University of California Santa Barbara, and Kate Poole, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The Brown administration has endorsed better water efficiency—and put a small amount of money where its mouth is. Conservation is the No. 1 priority in the governor’s Water Action Plan, and the drought measures he advanced in 2014 included $10 million to help farmers implement more efficient water management. An additional $10 million was allocated as part of the $1.1 billion drought spending plan Brown and bipartisan legislators unveiled last week. Already more than 50 percent of California’s farmers use drip or micro irrigation, said Steve Lyle, the director of public affairs at the California Department of Food and Agriculture; the new monies will encourage further adoptions.

Meanwhile, underpriced water has enabled continued production of such water-intensive crops as alfalfa, much of which is exported to China. Rice, perhaps the thirstiest of major crops, saw its production area decrease by 25 percent in 2014. But pasture grass, which is used to fatten livestock, and many nut and fruit products have seen their acreage actually increase. Resnick told the Paramount Farms conference that the acreage devoted to pistachios had grown by 118 percent over the last 10 years; for almonds and walnuts the growth rates were 47 and 30 percent, respectively.

One striking aspect of California’s water emergency is how few voices in positions of authority have been willing to state the obvious. To plant increasing amounts of water-intensive crops in a desert would be questionable in the best of times. To continue doing so in the middle of a historic drought, even as scientists warn that climate change will increase the frequency and severity of future droughts, seems nothing less than reckless.

Yet even a politician as gutsy and scientifically informed as Jerry Brown tiptoes around such questions. The Daily Beast asked Brown if in this time of record drought California should begin pricing water more realistically and discouraging water-intensive crops. Responding on the governor’s behalf, spokesman Lyle simply skipped the water pricing question. On crop choices, he cited a reply Brown recently offered to a similar query: “Growing a walnut or an almond takes water, having a new house with a bunch of toilets and showers takes water. So how do we balance use efficiency with the kind of life that people want in California? … We’re all going to have to pull together.”

“California Has One Year of Water Left, Will You Ration Now?” asked the headline of a widely discussed opinion piece NASA scientist Jay Famiglietti published in the Los Angeles Times on March 16.  The headline overstated the situation somewhat, and editors soon corrected it to clarify that California has one remaining year of stored water, not one year of total water. As Famiglietti was careful to state, California’s reservoirs today contain enough water to supply a year of average consumption.

So if California endures a fourth year of drought, the only way to keep household taps and farmers’ irrigation lines flowing will be to summon to the surface still greater volumes of groundwater. But that strategy can’t work forever; worse, the longer it is pursued, the bigger the risk that it collapses aquifers, rendering them irretrievably barren. Aquifers can be replenished—if rainwater and snowmelt are allowed to sink into the ground and humans don’t keep raiding the supply—and that is the expressed goal of California’s forthcoming groundwater regulations. The process takes many decades, however, and extended relief from further droughts.

California is caught between the lessons of its history and the habits of its political economy. Droughts of 10 years duration and longer have been a recurring feature in the region for thousands of years, yet a modern capitalist economy values a given commodity only as much as the price of that commodity. Current pricing structures enrich a handful of interests, but they are ushering the state as a whole toward a parched and perilous future.

The price of water, however, is not determined by inalterable market forces; it is primarily a function of government policies and the social forces that shape them. Elected officials may dodge the question for now, but the price of water seems destined to become an unavoidable issue in California politics. “As our water supply gets more variable and scarce in the future, we’re going to have to look at how we price water so it gets used more efficiently,” said Cooley of the Pacific Institute. “In some ways we’ve come a long way in California’s water policy and practices over the past 20 years. But if you look into a future of climate change and continued [economic] development, we can and need to do much better.”

Mark Hertsgaard has reported on politics, culture and the environment from more than 20 countries and has authored six books, including HOT:  Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth, which will appear in paperback April 17.

 

How Growers Gamed California’s Drought – The Daily Beast.

scafetta_agu-2012.pdf.

 

IceAgeNow | Planetary Theory Moves to the Next Level.

 

Calgary, Alberta, Canada (PRWEB) August 15, 2013

Climate change on earth is significantly affected by the changing 11 year solar magnetic cycles, according to Friends of Science and many solar and climate researchers. A recently released NASA video, complete with animation explaining the process wherein the sun’s magnetic poles flip polarity, lends credence to the scientific position Friends of Science takes on climate change and global warming.

“We are pleased that the NASA video and animation describing these events in part explains how climate is affected by the solar magnetic flux,” says Dr. Neil Hutton, director of Friends of Science.

The video also notes there are space and earth climate variations as earth passes through the ‘waves’ of magnetic energy radiating from the sun.

Dr. Hutton is a long-time proponent of the view that solar magnetic flux is the principle driver of climate change. His work has been cited by the late Dr. Peter Ziegler, Emeritus Professor, University of Basel, in December 2010 in a presentation to the Swiss Academy of Sciences.

“For the first time in history, people are able to observe close-up the changes the sun goes through as its magnetic poles flip,” says Hutton. He points out that sun spot activity has been documented as early as 300 BC, but most notably by Galileo in the 1600’s, and the activity has been systematically recorded since 1700.

Hutton notes that this particular “Cycle 24” of the sun is quite unusual due to the very low number of sunspots.

“The current sun spot behavior has not been observed in 200 years,” says Hutton.

Colder periods like the Little Ice Age were preceded by low sunspot activity. During the Little Ice Age from about 1350 to 1850, cooler temperatures and wet seasons across Europe lead to massive crop failures, famines and civil unrest.

Hutton states: “The Sun’s magnetic index is measured daily and has significantly declined since the last maximum of Cycle 23. The geomagnetic activity of earth and that of the sun are interrelated and their interplay also affects climate. Theoretically, a weaker solar magnetic field could allow the penetration of more cosmic rays which directly affect cloud cover and climate. This has been demonstrated by the recently completed CLOUD experiment at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research.”

Friends of Science express concern that global governments are not prepared for the possible consequences of multi-decade global cooling.

“Even a one degree drop in temperature could devastate agricultural production,” says Hutton. “Are we prepared?”

Colder weather would reduce northern hemisphere crop growth, increase demand for reliable, dispatchable energy, and increase the number of health issues and deaths.

“Instead of spending a trillion dollars world-wide on carbon reduction policies and unreliable wind and solar, as we have done in the past decade, we need to upgrade and maintain inexpensive fossil-fuel based energy for northern, industrialized countries,” says Hutton.

Friends of Science President, Len Maier, a retired engineer, is a farmer and recommends: “We must convert land production from producing biofuels from crops like canola and corn. Current producing crops like these should be dedicated to human or animal feed, not be used for biofuels.”

The Little Ice Age lasted about 500 years. Other periods of extended cooling occurred before humans used fossil-fuels. Friends of Science agree that human activity has some impact on climate; the effect of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2) is minor compared to natural forces and cyclical patterns of the sun and ocean currents.

About Friends of Science

Friends of Science have spent a decade reviewing a broad spectrum of literature on climate change and have concluded the sun is the main driver of climate change, not carbon dioxide (CO2). Membership is open to the public and available on-line.

Contact:
Friends of Science
P.O. Box 23167, Connaught P.O.
Calgary, Alberta
Canada T2S 3B1

Toll-free Telephone: 1-888-789-9597

friendsofscience.org

E-mail: contact(at)friendsofscience(dot)org

Spectacular NASA Images Illustrate Sun as a Driver of Global Warming and Climate Change Foretells Global Cooling Says Friends of Science.

 

 

solar-cycle-sunspot-number.gif (GIF Image, 720 × 550 pixels).

 

Danziger Bridge Shootings

The trial is underway for four New Orleans police officers accused of killing two people and wounding four others in the shooting on the Danziger Bridge in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The suspects, pictured left to right, are Robert Faulcon Jr., Robert Gisevius Jr., Kenneth Bowen, and Anthony Villavaso II.

via Henry Solis, LA Cop, Suspected Of Killing Man During Off-Duty Fight.

It is one of the profound ironies of climate change that a state besieged by its effects — where coastal islands face existential threats and daily floods render major thoroughfares difficult to navigate — is also populated by powerful politicians who express deep suspicion of the relevant science.

This is Florida, the state of Sen. Marco Rubio (R), who said last year he doesn’t “believe human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate.” This is Florida, the state of former governor and Republican presidential contender Jeb Bush, who in 2009 called himself a global warming “skeptic.” And this is Florida, the state of Republican Gov. Rick Scott, who has punted on the issue. “Well, I’m not a scientist,” he told the Miami Herald’s Marc Caputo last year when asked if he was becoming less skeptical of man-made climate change.

According to a Sunday report from the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting, Scott’s aversion to discussions of man-made climate change has been brought to bear on a department charged with protecting a state that already exhibits many of the changes scientists predict will overtake other coastal regions. Officials with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), as reported by writer Tristram Korten, have been restricted from using the term “climate change” or “global warming” in official correspondence.

[Why this Florida scientist had to remove the term ‘climate change’ from her study]

[Things just got very hot for climate deniers’ favorite scientist]

The investigative reporting outfit called it an “unwritten policy,” which was “distributed verbally statewide” and has “affected” how one of the largest departments in the state, armed with a $1.4 billion budget and 3,200 employees, does business. “The irony is clearly apparent,” Korten told The Washington Post on Sunday night. “Florida is a peninsula with 1,200 miles of coastline, and when it comes to climate change, we’re the canary in the coalmine. And we’re relying on the state government to protect us and to plan for these changes.”

The report, published in the Miami Herald, was bolstered by the testimony of numerous former employees and e-mails from around the state. Kristina Trotta, who used to work in the DEP’s Miami office, said she was told during a 2014 meeting that she couldn’t employ terms such as “climate change” and “global warming.” “We were told that we were not allowed to discuss anything that was not a true fact,” she said. “… The regional administrator told us that we are the governor’s agency; this is the message from the governor’s office. And that is the message we will portray.”

In a brief interview with The Washington Post, Trotta said in some ways the ban wasn’t a surprise. She was familiar with Scott’s reservations on climate change. But in other ways, she was blown away. “It was a surprise, given what a clear threat climate change is to coral reefs and also to the state of Florida in general,” she told The Post.

It’s unclear how the alleged order came down. One state spokesman told the investigative outfit that “there’s no policy on this.”

The Post got the same answer. “DEP has no such policy in place,” department spokesman Dee Ann Miller wrote in an e-mail late Sunday night, pointing to myriad ways the state has monitored and studied rising sea levels and how they will affect coastal communities. “The department constantly monitors changes we identify in Florida ecosystems and works with other local and state agencies to ensure Florida’s communities and natural resources are protected.”

She didn’t use the terms “climate change” or “global warming” in her response and declined to respond when asked whether she was aware of any unwritten policy that forbids those terms.

John Tupps, a spokesperson for Gov. Rick Scott, told the Washington Post “there is no policy in existence. … Allegations and claims made in the [Florida investigative article] are not true. This policy, it doesn’t exist.”

[This animation of shrinking sea ice is a startling illustration of climate change]

Korten, for his part, said some state officials stymied his efforts when he started asking specific questions. “Our story doesn’t say how deep this goes into the state government,” he said. “I called them repeatedly for comment and e-mailed, and no one would comment.”

If the findings are accurate, Florida offers a cautionary tale of how politics can bog down an urgent scientific call to action. Reports, such as one last year by the National Climate Assessment, call South Florida “uniquely vulnerable to Sea Level Rise. … There is an imminent threat of increased inland flooding during heavy rain events in low-lying coastal areas such as southeast Florida, where just inches of sea level rise will impair the capacity of storm water drainage systems to empty into the ocean.”

In some southern parts of the state, such as Miami Beach, sea rise is no longer something to debate, but something to deal with daily. The city, expected to spend $400 million to combat rising tides in the next five years, already has invested in a new drainage system that officials hope will keep the streets dry for the next three decades.

But the fact that the state’s highest elected office may have reservations about climate change has outraged some local academics. “You have to start real planning, and I’ve seen absolutely none of that from the current governor,” University of Miami geologist Harold Wanless told the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting. “It’s beyond ludicrous to deny using the term climate change. It’s criminal at this point.”

This post was updated after publication to reflect a statement provided by a spokesperson for Gov. Rick Scott.

[Throw Florida’s apparent rejection of the phrase ‘climate change’ onto the pile of anti-climate politics]
Terrence McCoy writes on foreign affairs for The Washington Post’s Morning Mix. Follow him on Twitter here.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

2660
Comments

The Post Recommends

Here’s a list of the GOP senators who signed the Iran letter

The letter was spearheaded by Sen. Tom Cotton and was signed by 47 Republican senators. Seven GOP senators did not sign.

Harried parents embracing Uber to move kids around town

How to get your kids from Point A to Point B? Just Uber them.

John Clayton explains why Redskins’ Scot McCloughan would absolutely draft Marcus Mariota

Clayton says McCloughan will always lean toward getting a QB.

Trending on Social Media

This poll question is very bad news for Hillary Clinton

Twitter updates its rules to specifically ban ‘revenge porn’

An alligator you must see to believe reportedly invades Florida golf course

Why did victims in Islamic State beheading videos look so calm? They didn’t know it was real.

Maybe it’s time for a real Democratic presidential primary

Map: The salary you need to buy a home in 27 U.S. cities
Discussion Policy
2660 Comments
Mentioned in this story and want to comment? Learn more
Please Sign In to Comment

All Comments
Newest First
Pause live updates

Badpelican
3:45 PM PST
The legislative equivalent of sticking one’s fingers in one’s ears and proclaiming, “I don’t wanna hear it!” Classy.
LikeReplyShare
NuMil3Design
3/10/2015 6:48 PM PST
Could Gov. Rick Scott and his administration be so ignorant that they would ban the use of descriptive words and phrases commonly used in the discussions and debates on the subject at hand? <<<<^^^^ I dunno. I banned them from the first paragraph of this post, and nobody's under water because of it. Just in case there is a list of banned words & phrases, Gov. Scott, I'd like suggest a few more to add to the list: snorkel swimming lessons shark repellent Arks - 15% off - While they last. Gainesville oceanfront property LikeReplyShare christinecordaro 3/10/2015 3:35 PM PST This is just like the Mad Hatter in Through the Looking Glass!! But that's OK-let them remain in their state of denial and when the seas sweep over Florida, obliterating it forever, we will hear them praying to their non-exixteng god! And best of all, we won't have to worry about Florida screwing up any more elections! LikeReplyShare dalyplanet 3/10/2015 4:35 PM PST It that the plot of your climate fiction book idea? LikeReply Cj Gorele 3/10/2015 3:12 PM PST I have just finished shoveling my drive-way for the last 3 hours. When is 'global Warming' coming? LikeReplyShare The-Q 3/10/2015 3:02 PM PST Meanwhile... unarmed young black men are gunned down without ever having said the words " “climate change” and “global warming.” LikeReplyShare Waterloo1 3/10/2015 2:59 PM PST Thanks to denial power, Republican ice sheets and glaciers are growing back every day while Democrat ones melt helplessly . LikeReplyShare Idliketosay 3/10/2015 10:30 AM PST Wanna hear something even better? Our illustrious representatives have today voted out of committee for floor discussion a Bathroom Safety bill that forbids the use of public bathrooms by transvestites. No w I ask you. . .have we nothing better to do? have we nothing better to spend our money on but more cops to check our bathroom etiquette??? And how in H are they going to enforce this bill? What a bunch of doofuses--your republicans at work. . .or play??? Whichever, it's way out in right field. . . LikeReplyShare Waterloo1 3/10/2015 2:57 PM PST Pursuing transvestites is fun. Climate change is complex and scary. So which issue offers opportunity for clear demagoguery ? The transvestites win again !

Threatened by climate change, Florida reportedly bans term ‘climate change’ – The Washington Post.

IPCC Chief Resigns after Sexual Harassment Accusations – Scientific American.

NASA satellite image shows the frozen wasteland that currently is the United States | The Verge

 

NASA satellite image shows the frozen wasteland that currently is the United States | The Verge.

How New England and Boston’s Snow Measures Up In The Record Books

Jon Erdman
Published: February 22, 2015

An over three-week snow siege has buried parts of New England with feet of snow.

You may wonder if this extended snowy blitz is setting records. Below, we have a rundown of heaviest snowstorm, snowiest month and season lists for the hardest hit parts of New England. Click on each bolded city link for the latest forecast.

Boston

Winter Storms Juno and Marcus each made the top 10 heaviest Boston snowstorms, all-time.

1. Feb. 17-18, 2003: 27.6 inches
2. Feb. 6-7, 1978: 27.1 inches
3. Feb. 24-26, 1969: 25.8 inches
4. Mar. 31 – Apr. 1, 1997: 25.4 inches
5. Feb. 8-9, 2013 (Nemo): 24.9 inches
6. Jan. 26-28, 2015 (Juno): 24.6 inches
7. Feb. 7-10, 2015 (Marcus): 23.8 inches

8. Jan. 22-23, 2005: 22.5 inches
9. Jan. 20-21, 1978: 21.4 inches
10. Mar. 3-5, 1960: 19.8 inches

In just over two years, we’ve had three of the top seven heaviest snowstorms in Boston.

February has obliterated the previous snowiest month on record in Boston.

1. February 2015: 62.6 inches
2. January 2005: 43.3 inches
3. January 1945: 42.3 inches
4. February 2003: 41.6 inches
5. February 1969: 41.3 inches

For perspective, the average seasonal snowfall at Logan Airport is 43.5 inches.

Speaking of seasonal snowfall, 2014-2015 is now the second snowiest season on record. In the last 21 years, Boston has now had 4 of its top 5 snowiest seasons.

1. 1995-1996: 107.6 inches
2. 2014-2015: 99.8 inches
3. 1993-1994: 96.3 inches
4. 1947-1948: 89.2 inches
5. 2004-2005: 86.6 inches
6. 1977-1978: 85.1 inches
7. 1992-1993: 83.9 inches
8. 2010-2011: 81.0 inches
9. 1915-1916: 79.2 inches
10. 1919-1920: 73.4 inches

Other records Boston has set during this stretch include:

– Record 30-day snowfall: 90.8 inches from Jan. 19- Feb. 17, 2015, inclusive (previous record: 58.8 inches from Jan. 9 – Feb. 7, 1978). Incredibly, this 30-day total would be the third snowiest season!

– Record snow depth*: 37 inches on Feb. 9 (previous record: 31 inches on Jan. 11, 1996; * gaps in this dataset exist)

– Fastest six-foot snowfall: 72.5 inches in 18 days from Jan. 24 – Feb. 10, 2015 (previous record: 73 inches in 45 days from Dec. 29, 1993 to Feb. 11, 1994)

– Fastest 90-inch snowfall: 23 days from Jan. 24 – Feb. 15, 2015 (previous record: 78 days from Dec. 30, 1993 to Mar. 17, 1994)

– Four calendar days with at least 12 inches of snow, a first for any snow season (previously, only two seasons had as many as two such days, in 1977-1978 and 1960-1961 seasons)

– At least 0.5 inch of snow had fallen 6 straight days through Feb. 12, topping the previous such record stretch of 5 days in 1943. The record stretch of measurable snow (at least 0.1 inch) was 9 straight days ending on Mar. 10, 1916.

– Finally, the Blue Hill Observatory in Milton, Massachusetts set an all-time snow depth record on the morning of February 15.

Worcester, Massachusetts

(Caveat: Except for the April Fools’ snowstorm in 1997, there is a gap in the period of record from 1997-2002)

Winter Storm Juno in late January set a snowstorm record for Worcester.

1. Jan. 26-27, 2015 (Juno): 34.5 inches
2. Mar. 31 – Apr. 1, 1997 (April Fools): 33.0 inches
3. Dec. 11-12, 1992: 32.1 inches
4. Feb. 8-9, 2013 (Nemo): 28.7 inches
5. Feb. 14-16, 1962: 24.8 inches

February 2015 is now their snowiest month, all-time. Incredibly, they’ve had 2 of their top 5 snowiest months back-to-back (highlighted below):

1. February 2015: 52.5 inches
2. January 2005: 50.9 inches
3. January 2011: 48.4 inches
4. January 1987: 46.8 inches
5. January 2015: 46.5 inches

Worcester has now chalked up a top 10 snowiest season.

1. 1995-1996: 132.9 inches
2. 1992-1993: 120.1 inches
3. 2004-2005: 114.3 inches
4. 2002-2003: 111.8 inches
5. 2014-2015: 107.7 inches
6. 2012-2013: 108.9 inches
7. 1960-1961: 104.3 inches
8. 1993-1994: 100.2 inches
9. 1971-1972: 99.3 inches
10. 1957-1958: 97.5 inches

Portland, Maine

Winter Storm Juno in late January was a top-five snowstorm for Portland.

1. Feb. 8-9, 2013 (Nemo): 31.9 inches
2. Jan. 17-18, 1979: 27.1 inches
3. Feb. 17-18, 1952: 25.3 inches
4. Jan. 27-28, 2015 (Juno): 23.8 inches
5. Jan. 23-24, 1935: 23.3 inches

Portland needs just over 18 inches of snow to reach their fifth snowiest month (50.9 inches in Feb. 1893). They also need 15.8 inches to reach their 10th snowiest season (103 inches).

Bangor, Maine

Bangor needs just over 9 inches of snow to reach their top five snowiest months.

1. February 1969: 58 inches
2. January 1966: 48.4 inches
3. December 1962: 47.5 inches
4. January 1987: 46.7 inches
5. December 2007: 42.3 inches

January 2015 just missed the top five, with 41.8 inches.

Bangor vaulted into their top five snowiest seasons on February 19.

1. 1962-1963: 181.9 inches
2. 1970-1971: 119.7 inches
3. 2010-2011: 115.1 inches
4. 1968-1969: 114.4 inches
5. 2014-2015: 107.8 inches

Bangor may near its all-time record snow depth (snow that’s on the ground at any one time) of 53 inches from Feb. 27 – Mar. 1, 1969.

Bangor and other Downeast Maine locations set several 7-to-10 day snowstorm records from late January to early February.

(MORE: Full writeup from NWS-Caribou, Maine)

One of those Downeast Maine locations, Eastport, has picked up over 9 feet (109 inches) of snow since January 25.

 

How New England and Boston’s Snow Measures Up In The Record Books | Weather Underground.

Lake Erie is 98% frozen

The Great Lakes ice cover continues to grow as winter weather slams the country. Lake Erie had 98% ice cover on Wednesday, according to the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory.

Lake Erie usually gets an extensive ice coverage because of how shallow the lake is, according to George Leshkevich with the Great Lakes Coastwatch. He says Erie isn’t the only lake experiencing the deep freeze.

“The Great Lakes as a whole experienced 85.4 percent ice cover as of yesterday,” Leshkevich says.

Leshkevich says 2012 and 2013 were mild years for ice cover, but 2014 was one of the worst and this year could be shaping up to be similar.

“Nobody expected 2014 to be as bad as it was, almost record breaking for ice cover and this year it’s the same thing with these very cold temperatures,” Leshkevich says

via Lake Erie is 98% frozen.

Remember; not one scientist on earth can tell you what Light is,  how Gravity works, or how magnetism works.

Scientists have declared that if a human body moves faster than 20 mph that human will DIE! Thus any human on a steam locomotive will DIE!

Very recently scientists declared that by cooking meat you will make it safe to eat. Then prions were “discovered”.

A survey of opinion is just that, opinion .  In god I trust everyone else is required to provide DATA!

A SURVEY shows a significant opinion gap between professional scientists and the wider American public on issues in science ranging from climate change to genetically modified foods. But the results match up on at least one score: Each side has a slightly more negative view of the other.

“There is a disconnect between the way in which the public perceives the state of science and science’s position on a variety of issues, and the way in which the scientific community … looks at the state of science,” Alan Leshner, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, told reporters in advance of the survey’s release on Thursday. “That’s a cause of concern.”

The survey was conducted by the Pew Research Center in collaboration with the AAAS last year — and draws upon a telephone survey of 2,002 American adults as well as an online survey of 3,748 U.S.-based members of the science association. It’s part of a years-long series of Pew reports on attitudes toward scientific issues.

Our Year of Extremes: Did Climate Change Just Hit Home? Part 1

Ann Curry Reports

The biggest disconnect had to do with genetically modified foods, where there was a gap of 51 percentage points. Eighty-eight percent of the scientists said it’s safe to eat such foods, compared with 37 percent of the wider-ranging sample.

Other opinion gaps focused on these hot-button issues:

  • Should animals be used in research? 89 percent of the scientists said yes, as opposed to 47 percent of the public.
  • Is it safe to eat foods grown with pesticides? 68 percent of the scientists agreed, compared with 28 percent of the public.
  • Is climate change caused mostly by human activity? 87 percent yes from the scientists, 50 percent yes from the public.
  • Have humans evolved over time? 98 percent yes from the scientists, 65 percent yes from the public.
  • Should more offshore oil drilling be allowed? 32 percent yes from the scientists, 52 percent yes from the public.
  • Should more nuclear power plants be built? 65 percent yes from the scientists, 45 percent yes from the public.
  • Should parents be allowed to decide not to have their children vaccinated? 13 percent yes from the scientists, 30 percent yes from the public.

The gaps haven’t changed dramatically since 2009, the last time a similar survey was conducted, said Cary Funk, the lead author of this week’s report and associate director of science research at Pew Research Center. What has changed is how scientists as well as the wider sampling of Americans think about those gaps, and about the future outlook for science in society.

Public vs. Scientists: What Polling Shows About the Divide

Slightly more negative

Funk noted “a slightly more negative take of the American public about scientific achievements, as well as a slight rise in negative views, but still a majority saying positive things about the contribution of science to society.”

Seventy-nine percent of the public sampling said science has made life easier for most people, but that figure is down four points from what it was in 2009. There were similar downturns in the assessment of science’s effect on the quality of food, health care and the environment.

When it came to science, technology, engineering and math education — also known as STEM — U.S. elementary and secondary schools received an above-average rating from 29 percent of the public and only 16 percent of the scientists. Fifty-four percent of the public survey respondents said U.S. scientific achievements were the best in the world, which is down from the 65 percent rating in 2009.

On average, the scientists were a bit gloomier as well: In 2009, 76 percent of the scientists surveyed said it was a good time for science, but that figure dropped to 52 percent in the latest survey. The way the scientists saw it, one of the biggest problems is that the public doesn’t know very much about science — closely followed by media misrepresentations of scientific findings.

What to do, and why

So what’s to be done? The scientists who were sampled said there should be more STEM education built into elementary and secondary school curricula, but Leshner said scientists themselves had a responsibility as well.

“What’s necessary is for the scientific community to go out to the American public and have a genuine dialogue about these issues, so that the public can understand that science is not unable to see their point of view, first of all,” he told reporters. “And secondly, that scientists will in fact work toward finding some kind of common ground.”

Lee Rainie, the Pew Research Center’s director of Internet, science and technology research, said the disconnect over science policy issues isn’t merely an academic concern.

“Science issues are increasingly civic issues, and they’re not distinct. They’re not off to the side,” he said. “They’re at the center of what defines the culture and the society and how people live their lives.”

Image: Opinion gaps Pew Research Center
The opinion gaps between a sample of scientists and a sample of the wider American public varied, depending on the issue.

Pew’s survey of the general public was conducted using a probability-based sample of the U.S. adult population by land-line and cellular telephone Aug. 15-25, 2014, with a representative sample of 2,002 adults nationwide. Margin of sampling error for results based on all adults is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. The survey of scientists was based on a representative sample of 3,748 U.S. based members of AAAS. That survey was conducted online Sept. 11-Oct. 13, 2014. Margin of sampling error for results based on all AAAS respondents is plus or minus 1.7 percentage points.

via Survey Shows Scientists and Public at Odds Over Climate, GMOs and More – NBC News.com.

Global warming could make blizzards worse – The Washington Post.

And Porn turns men into fags………

What a piece of lying trash.

It’s all about programming simple minds with repetitive lies to justify taxing them into fiefdom.

Like this little troll.

Major Drop In Solar Activity Predicted: Landscheidt Minimum is upon us and a mini-ice age is imminent

The stunning announcement made at the annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society exceeded the expectations from the advance publicity!

The results of new studies were announced today (June 14) at the annual meeting of the solar physics division of the American Astronomical Society, which is being held this week at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces. 

The results of three separate studies seem to show that even as the current sunspot cycle (SC24) moves toward the solar maximum, the sun could be heading into a more-dormant period, with activity during the next 11-year sunspot cycle (SC25) greatly reduced or even eliminated.

The indicators have been  growing for some time that we are in for a a new solar minimum – the Landscheidt minimum – which could be similar to the Dalton Minimum and may even approach the Maunder Minimum. This could mean a cooling period for the earth of 20 – 30 years or for as long as 60 – 70 years. In any event the signs will be unambiguous and inescapable within a decade.

It is reasonable to assume that climatic conditions over the next 20 – 30 years will resemble those prevailing between 1790 and 1820. But SC24 has a way to go yet and it could be that solar activity for SC24 and 25 will be even lower than during the Dalton minimum and perhaps closer to the Spörer minimum but perhaps not as deep as the Maunder minimum.

But in either case the solar activity to come following the Modern maximum may well resemble the 500 years of decline in solar activity which followed the Medieval maximum.

Solar activity events recorded in radiocarbon. Present period is on left. Values since 1950 not shown: Wikipedia

The three papers are: 

  1. “Large-Scale Zonal Flows During the Solar Minimum — Where Is Cycle 25?” by Frank Hill, R. Howe, R. Komm, J. Christensen-Dalsgaard, T.P. Larson, J. Schou & M. J. Thompson.
  2. “A Decade of Diminishing Sunspot Vigor” by W. C. Livingston, M. Penn & L. Svalgard.
  3. “Whither Goes Cycle 24? A View from the Fe XIV Corona” by R. C. Altrock.

 Spacedaily reports:

Major Drop In Solar Activity Predicted

As the current sunspot cycle, Cycle 24, begins to ramp up toward maximum, independent studies of the solar interior, visible surface, and the corona indicate that the next 11-year solar sunspot cycle, Cycle 25, will be greatly reduced or may not happen at all.

“This is highly unusual and unexpected,” Dr. Frank Hill, associate director of the NSO’s Solar Synoptic Network, said of the results. “But the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation.”

Hill is the lead author on one of three papers on these results being presented this week. Using data from the Global Oscillation Network Group (GONG) of six observing stations around the world, the team translates surface pulsations caused by sound reverberating through the Sun into models of the internal structure.

One of their discoveries is an east-west zonal wind flow inside the Sun, called the torsional oscillation, which starts at mid-latitudes and migrates towards the equator. The latitude of this wind stream matches the new spot formation in each cycle, and successfully predicted the late onset of the current Cycle 24.

“We expected to see the start of the zonal flow for Cycle 25 by now,” Hill explained, “but we see no sign of it. This indicates that the start of Cycle 25 may be delayed to 2021 or 2022, or may not happen at all.”

In the second paper, Matt Penn and William Livingston see a long-term weakening trend in the strength of sunspots, and predict that by Cycle 25 magnetic fields erupting on the Sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Spots are formed when intense magnetic flux tubes erupt from the interior and keep cooled gas from circulating back to the interior.

For typical sunspots this magnetism has a strength of 2,500 to 3,500 gauss (Earth’s magnetic field is less than 1 gauss at the surface); the field must reach at least 1,500 gauss to form a dark spot.

Using more than 13 years of sunspot data collected at the McMath-Pierce Telescope at Kitt Peak in Arizona, Penn and Livingston observed that the average field strength declined about 50 gauss per year during Cycle 23 and now in Cycle 24.

They also observed that spot temperatures have risen exactly as expected for such changes in the magnetic field. If the trend continues, the field strength will drop below the 1,500 gauss threshold and spots will largely disappear as the magnetic field is no longer strong enough to overcome convective forces on the solar surface.

Moving outward, Richard Altrock, manager of the Air Force’s coronal research program at NSO’s Sunspot, NM, facilities has observed a slowing of the “rush to the poles,” the rapid poleward march of magnetic activity observed in the Sun’s faint corona. Altrock used four decades of observations with NSO’s 40-cm (16-inch) coronagraphic telescope at Sunspot.

“A key thing to understand is that those wonderful, delicate coronal features are actually powerful, robust magnetic structures rooted in the interior of the Sun,” Altrock explained. “Changes we see in the corona reflect changes deep inside the Sun.”

Altrock used a photometer to map iron heated to 2 million degrees C (3.6 million F). Stripped of half of its electrons, it is easily concentrated by magnetism rising from the Sun. In a well-known pattern, new solar activity emerges first at about 70 degrees latitude at the start of a cycle, then towards the equator as the cycle ages. At the same time, the new magnetic fields push remnants of the older cycle as far as 85 degrees poleward.

“In cycles 21 through 23, solar maximum occurred when this rush appeared at an average latitude of 76 degrees,” Altrock said.

“Cycle 24 started out late and slow and may not be strong enough to create a rush to the poles, indicating we’ll see a very weak solar maximum in 2013, if at all. If the rush to the poles fails to complete, this creates a tremendous dilemma for the theorists, as it would mean that Cycle 23’s magnetic field will not completely disappear from the polar regions (the rush to the poles accomplishes this feat). No one knows what the Sun will do in that case.”

All three of these lines of research to point to the familiar sunspot cycle shutting down for a while. “If we are right,” Hill concluded, “this could be the last solar maximum we’ll see for a few decades. That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth’s climate.”

That last may be the understatement of the century!!!

A photo of a sunspot taken in May 2010, with Earth shown to scale. The image has been colorized for  aesthetic reasons. This image with 0.1 arcsecond resolution from the Swedish 1-m Solar  Telescope represents the limit of what is currently possible in te

A photo of a sunspot taken in May 2010, with Earth shown to scale.This image with 0.1 arcsecond resolution from the Swedish 1-m Solar Telescope represents the limit of what is currently possible in terms of spatial resolution. CREDIT: The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, V.M.J. Henriques (sunspot), NASA Apollo 17 (Earth)

 

Major Drop In Solar Activity Predicted: Landscheidt Minimum is upon us and a mini-ice age is imminent | The k2p blog.

Frank Hill: Future sunspot drop, but no new ice age

Frank Hill told EarthSky that — while his team did suggest a drop in solar activity beginning around 2019 — they did not suggest Earth would cool as a result.
:
:

Frank Hill is an astronomer at the U.S. National Solar Observatory. In June, 2011, Hill and colleagues announced their conclusions that sunspot activity might be headed for a dramatic drop in activity, beginning around the year 2019. The sun normally follows a cycle of activity lasting about 11 years. The current cycle, Cycle 24, is now around its peak. Frank Hill and colleagues are looking toward the next cycle — Cycle 25. Based on data showing decades-long trends, they are suggesting Cycle 25’s peak might be delayed or that it might not have a typical peak in activity at all. Hill spoke more about his sunspot studies with EarthSky’s Jorge Salazar.

Are you familiar with media reports that have gotten this story wrong?

Yes, actually. It seems to me that a lot of reports have come out and said that we have predicted a new ice age. That is making the leap from low sunspot activity to cooling. We did not predict a little ice age.

What we predicted is something that the sun will be doing, not what the Earth’s climate will be doing. That has been the major inaccuracy that I have seen in the media at this point.

You studied jet streams below the surface of the sun. What were your main findings?

For 16 years, we’ve been observing the inside of the sun using a technique called helioseismology. The sun is filled with sound waves — acoustic waves — that penetrate and travel all the way throughout the sun. They are visible when they strike the surface of the sun from the inside, making the surface move up and down.

Using this data, we can infer the motions of the gas inside the sun.

The solar disk, showing a moderate number of spots. Image Credit: NASA

And we have found that there is a jet stream, which had been observed previously on the surface in 1981, that is very tightly timed to the solar cycle.

This jet stream typically first appears at a high latitude on the sun, near the solar poles, approximately 10 to 12 years before the start of the solar cycle. It then moves first toward the poles, and then another branch appears. It moves towards the equator. We should be seeing the poleward branch of this flow for Cycle 25. That’s the next cycle of sunspots after the the one that we are in, which is Cycle 24. We should have seen that flow back in 2008, and we still have not seen it. And so this leads us to believe that that there is something different about Cycle 25 than we have previously seen.

When the sun has sunspots on it, the sun is a little bit brighter than when there are not. So if there’s a lack of sunspots, then the sun is a little bit dimmer. By a little bit, I mean one tenth of one percent. It’s a very small fraction.

What does this all mean?

It could mean a range of things. It could mean that the next sunspot cycle, after the current one, could be delayed by two to five years, at least, and perhaps longer.

Frozen Thames, circa 1677. Artist unknown. Wikimedia Commons.

Or at the other extreme, it could mean that there are no sunspots appearing at all for an extended period of time. We could be entering a situation similar to the Maunder Minimum, which was a period of 70 years or so, from 1645 to 1715 — where very few visible sunspots were observed. [Editor’s Note: The Maunder Minimum — a period of decreased activity on the sun — is often said to correlate roughly in time to what is sometimes called the Little Ice Age, a period of unusually cold weather in northern Europe, during which people were said to ice skate on the Thames.]

The Maunder Minimum has been connected to the Little Ice Age, anecdotally. However, there are some indications that the connection with the Little Ice Age might not be as strong as some people claim. It probably depends on how you define Little Ice Age.

But in some measures you can say that the Little Ice Age is thought to have occurred 100-300 years before the Maunder Minimum itself. So while part of it coincided with the Maunder Minimum, not all of it did.

So it’s not clear that there really was a cause and effect. It’s definitely a very gray area, and of course we don’t have very good data on it because it happened so long ago.

What do you expect to happen now, with activity on the sun?

In 2013, we expect to see a maximum of the current solar cycle, which is Cycle 24. The next solar cycle, Cycle 25, should start about 2019 or 2020. What we are claiming is that it may not start in 2019 or 2020. It might be delayed until 2025 — or even longer. We can’t tell yet.

Close-up on a sunspot. Image Credit: NASA

The evidence is this. The jet stream flow that we are observing inside the sun — as well as with helioseismology — is very tightly correlated with the timing of the solar cycle. For instance, you might have heard of the long, deep minimum that we just emerged from — between Cycles 23 and 24. That minimum was approximately 1.5 years longer than we normally experience. We found that the jet stream inside the sun — which we call the torsional oscillation and which migrates from high to low latitudes on the sun — was migrating at a much slower rate than it had in the past. It took about 1.5 years longer to reach the latitude at which sunspots begin to appear.

And that made us realize that observing this phenomenon could provide a clock, a future predictor of what will be happening for the overall solar cycle itself.

Listen to the 8-minute and 90-second EarthSky interviews with Frank Hill on the predicted decrease in solar activity — and inaccurate media reports that it means a period of cooling for Earth — at top of page.

Frank Hill: Future sunspot drop, but no new ice age | Space | EarthSky.

Antarctic sea ice is at record- high levels, but researchers are quick to point out that such conditions do not refute knowledge of global warming. Antarctica reached a total ice extent of 7.78 million square miles on Sept. 20, breaking a record set just one year before.

 

This sea ice is floating on water, and should not be confused with the frozen covering seen on the land. Those packs of ice are melting faster than expected.

 

This unusual buildup of sea ice around Antarctica suggests that complex processes may be affecting water around the continent. One theory holds that changing air patterns over the frozen continent are blowing cold winds out over the Southern Ocean, leading to the formation of ice. Another idea holds that fresh liquid water, released by melting glaciers on land, could be draining into the waterway. This would lower salt concentrations in the ocean, leading to greater quantities of frozen water. Additional research could reveal the process fueling creation of sea ice.

 

“There hasn’t been one explanation yet that I’d say has become a consensus, where people say, ‘We’ve nailed it, this is why it’s happening.’ Our models are improving, but they’re far from perfect,” Claire Parkinson, a senior scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, said.

 

Near the North Pole, Arctic sea ice continues to recede with each passing season. The smallest amount of ice ever measured was seen in 2012, and this year was the sixth-lowest on record. The rate at which ice is disappearing in the Arctic is three times faster than it is building in the Southern Hemisphere. Sea ice, measured worldwide, has decreased since the start of the industrial revolution.

 

“The planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming. Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected, but just like with global warming, not every location with sea ice will have a downward trend in ice extent,” Parkinson said.

 

Many factors affect the formation of sea ice in Polar Regions. These include water salinity, snowfall amounts, cloud cover, the ever-changing ozone hole and many other unpredictable conditions.

 

“It’s really not surprising to people in the climate field that not every location on the face of Earth is acting as expected – it would be amazing if everything did. The Antarctic sea ice is one of those areas where things have not gone entirely as expected. So it’s natural for scientists to ask, ‘OK, this isn’t what we expected, now how can we explain it?'” Parkinson stated in a NASA press release.
Read more: http://www.techtimes.com/articles/17496/20141008/antarctic-sea-ice-at-record-high-levels-but-that-doesnt-refute-warming.htm#ixzz3FcFsZKkd

Antarctic sea ice at record-high levels, but that doesn’t refute warming : SCIENCE : Tech Times.

But these fools keep the lies going

New reports have found evidence for the first time that some extreme weather can be attributed to man-made global warming.

Climate experts have long maintained that no single weather event, like a drought, heat wave or storm, could be linked to climate change.

But a growing number now say their thinking has changed, thanks to better computer models.

A special edition of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society released on Sept. 29 looks at 22 studies on 2013 climate extremes.

While scientists say they could not find a global warming link to events like an early South Dakota blizzard, freak storms in Germany and a cold British spring, other weather extremes had clear fingerprints of climate change.

By running multiple global climate models, five independent studies found that decades of burning of fossil fuels have made heat waves like those that baked eastern Asia, Australia and New Zealand in 2013 far more likely.

A Stanford University study found greenhouse gas emissions now make rain-blocking ridges of high pressure three times more likely to bring drought to California.

Climate Change Responsible for 2013 Weather Extremes.

Oh this wallet with your Id in it that you found in my pocket is not yours.  I do not know how it got there.  Fucking liars.

Antarctica has set a sea ice record, which is odd considering the rising global temperature.

Incompetent Scientists have said global warming is actually the reason for the increase.

via Antarctica Breaks Record for Most Sea Ice Ever Recorded : Science : Design & Trend.

What backwards bullshit is this spun story trying to accomplish.

Record sea ice around Antarctica due to global warming

via Record sea ice around Antarctica due to global warming – environment – 17 September 2014 – New Scientist.

Now that it is clear that global warming has STOPPED the spin doctors and slackers with PhD’s are trying to justify their lies and doctored data with some excuse that the ocean is soaking it all up.  BULLSHIT!  It is the sun as predicted by the Landscheidt Cycle!

http://www.landscheidt.info/

 

Global warming’s ‘pause’: Where did the heat go? (+video) – CSMonitor.com.

NASA Climate Scientist

“Opinions vary about the hiatus, as some view it as evidence that man-made global warming is a myth,”

NASA said in a press release.

Hiatus, Climategate, fraud, incompetence, carbon tax, destruction of the middle class, fiefdom, enslavement.

Get a fucking clue.

Cycle 24 is validiating the Landscheidt cycles

Global cooling is coming per the Landscheidt Cycles

…..

NASA Climate Scientist Explains 15-Year ‘Global Warming Hiatus’ « CBS DC.

 

 

An award-winning meteorologist with 60 years of experience and founder of the “Weather Channel” has produced a video explaining the history of the man-made global warming hoax!

John Coleman was also a broadcast meteorologist of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). However, after being a member for several years, he quit the AMS after it became clear to him “that politics had gotten in the way of science.” Coleman explains in the video that there is no man-made global warming, and why he’s is sure about this. Coleman explains that the so-called “climate change” is extremely negligible from a long-term perspective and nothing unusual or alarming. He points out that Antarctic sea is close to an all-time high, and the polar bears population is as high as it’s been in recorded history.

Coleman says in the video there are 9,000 Ph.D.s and 31,000 scientists who have signed a petition saying that the CO2 global warming theory is a hoax!

This global warming is caused by people after your tax money! Our all-knowing government doles out some $4.7 billion to people like former Vice President Gore. So far it is costing the average family of four some $1,000.

This damning incident by an experienced and well-respected meteorologist proves that the “climate change” movement is primarily (if not all) politically based. Its ultimate goal is to make Americans the enemy of the planet (so they’ll agree to greater government control over their behavior) – and to reduce America’s use of oil, gas and coal-based energy sources.

Mr Coleman called this nothing more than left-wing, Chicken Little politics!

Ben Eubanks Sr.

Du Quoin

 

Voice of the Reader: Global warming a hoax.

James M. Taylor

James M. Taylor is managing editor of Environment & Climate News, a national monthly… (read full bio)

Global warming – er, that is, global climate disruption – claimed another victim Sunday as Death Valley shattered its all-time record for coolest August 3 high temperature in history. Remarkably, Death Valley was a full 15 degrees cooler than its previous coolest August 3. The high temperature at Death Valley reached only 89 degrees Sunday, which was 33 degrees cooler than normal for August 3 and 15 degrees cooler than the previous record minimum high temperature of 104 degrees.

With no global warming during the past 17 years and remarkable cool weather becoming more frequent, global warming alarmists claim any departure from average – be it a warm departure or a cool departure – is more “proof” of a global warming crisis. Undoubtedly, alarmists will seize upon Sunday’s remarkably cool temperatures in Death Valley as more “proof” of a global warming crisis.

More likely, the shattering of all-time cool temperature records at Death Valley is a result of the Heartland Institute Effect. Just as cold temperatures invariably occur when Al Gore makes public appearances to raise the alarm about global warming, cold temperatures also invariably occur when the Heartland Institute hosts climate realism events. Just last month, the Heartland Institute hosted its 9th International Conference on Climate Change in Las Vegas, just a short drive from Death Valley. Last August, Atlanta set new records for lowest high temperatures when the Heartland Institute hosted its Emerging Issues Forum in the Peach State capital.

James M. Taylor

James M. Taylor is managing editor of Environment & Climate News, a national monthly… (read full bio)

 

Global Warming? Death Valley Shatters Cool Temperature Record | Heartlander Magazine.

Supreme Court limits EPA’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions | The Rundown | PBS NewsHour.

could by it self may become He anticipates could be predicted that could become are expected to BULLSHIT,

via 22 Devastating Effects Of Climate Change, Including Tiny Horses | Business Insider.

We are all going to die! Well not from this thing today.

A massive asteroid roughly the size of an entire football stadium that was discovered only months ago is passing by the Earth this week, with professional and amateur astronomers alike having the best chance to watch the flyover on Thursday.

Officially named Asteroid 2014 HQ124, the giant hunk of space mass has been nicknamed the Beast because, at an estimated size of over 1,000 feet wide, it is roughly the size of a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. Initial estimates guessed that the body’s diameter was between 400 to 900 meters (1,312 to 2,953 feet), although NASA’s NEOWISE has determined the Beast is closer to 325 meters. (The meteor that exploded over Chelyabinsk, Russia measured between 17 to 20 meters in diameter.)

An object of such size could obviously pose a huge threat to Earth, although the Beast will fly no closer to the planet than 3.2 lunar distances (roughly equivalent to 716,500 miles). It would only take an object of about 100 feet wide to be destructive to Earth, according to Wired magazine.

For all of its size, the Beast was only detected on April 23. The NASA Wide-Field Infrared Survey Explorer discovered the Beast flying at approximately 31,000 mph (50,400 kilometers per hour) through space upon examining a fixed backdrop of the star system.

What’s disconcerting is that a rocky/metallic body this large, and coming so very close, should have only first been discovered this soon before its nearest approach,” Bob Berman, an astronomer with Internet astronomy outreach venture Slooh, told National Geographic. “HQ214 is at least 10 times bigger, and possibly 20 times, than the asteroid that injured a thousand people last year in Chelyabinsk, Siberia.”

If it were to impact us, the energy released would be measured not in kilotons like the atomic bombs that ended World War II, but in H-bomb type megatons,” he continued. “It will be interesting indeed to watch Slooh track and image this substantial intruder as it passes less than a million miles of us, at a speed 17 times greater than that of a high speed rifle bullet.”

The Beast marks one of the first major asteroids to pass by Earth since NASA and Slooh partnered earlier this year in an agreement that makes it possible for more citizen scientists to become involved with scouring outer space for asteroids flying near Earth. While large objects like the Beast make headlines, countless smaller asteroids and bodies fly over Earth every day unnoticed.

While astronomers believe we have spotted 90 percent of the potentially dangerous asteroids that are 1,000 feet wide or bigger,” Wired reported, “they estimate that we have detected only 30 percent of the objects that are around 460 feet wide and just 1 percent of the objects the size of the Beast.”

A Slooh video of the flyover is included below:

Gigantic, harmless ‘Beast’ asteroid flying by Earth LIVE VIDEO — RT News.

12 Mind-Blowing Documentaries On Netflix Right Now

 

 

Posted: Updated:

Print Article

 

 

 

As you search for a movie to watch this weekend, consider abandoning the fictional for some real-life drama. Here are 12 completely fantastic documentaries on Netflix right now, destined to blow your mind (or at least make you think a little).

“The Woman Who Wasn’t There”
“The Woman Who Wasn’t There” tracks the retrospectively terrifying Tania Head, as she poses as a 9/11 survivor, incorporating herself into a support group and weaving an intense web of lies for over six years. Her deception and its effect on those surrounding her present a compelling look at pathology and the lengths we are willing to go to garner acceptance.

woman who

“The Imposter”
Essentially this one is a real-life version of “The Orphan,” except with a French man impersonating a Texas boy who has gone missing. It is perhaps the closest the documentary format can get to being truly scary.

imposter

“Dear Zachary”
A good way to test if someone has a soul is to make sure they weep violently when watching “Dear Zachary.” Seriously, you will be racked with sobs by the end. But, beyond the emotional personal story upon which it is based, the film places a critical spotlight on an intensely-flawed child care system.

dear zachary

“Talhotblond”
“Talhotblond” explores the complex consequences of virtual relationships through one specific Internet love triangle, which ends in murder and incarceration. There are moments of somewhat corny chat recreation, but the complete picture of the person behind the titular screen name is chilling enough to forgive those phoned-in reenactments.

talhot

“Jesus Camp”
Somehow, despite the pervasive religious zealotry and penchant for brain-washing, the most shocking part of this film is when the head of the Jesus camp in question tells her campers that Harry Potter is evil (because he is “a warlock”). Either that or a mother actively convincing her child that global warming does not exist. But beneath this film’s absurd specifics, lies an unsettling look at a deeply misled faction of the conservative right.

jesus

“Tabloid”
With “Tabloid,” Errol Morris revisits the story of British tabloid sensation Joyce McKinney, a former beauty queen accused of kidnapping a Mormon and making him her slave. “Thirty years before the antics of Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan,” she makes the modern day scandal look like child’s play.

tablid

“Schooled: The Price Of College Sports”
Being interested in sports (or having any conception of what “touchdown” means) is not necessary for watching this documentary. Through the lens of a few slighted young men, “Schooled” tells the story of the big business of college sports and the little it has to offer its players.

schooled

“The Central Park Five”
“The Central Park Five” takes on the troublingly powerful impact that media can have on public perception. The narrative tracks the five boys who were wrongfully convicted in the notorious 1989 rape of a jogger in Central Park, exposing flaws in the criminal justice system and effect of trial by mob.

centralparkfive

“Man On Wire”
In a sublime narrative that may as well be a fairy tale, “Man On Wire” tracks the preparations of Philippe Petit, the miraculous French man who walked a high wire strung between the Twin Towers in 1974. The tale of “the artistic crime of the century,” as it came to be called, is suspenseful yet intriguing and easily the most beautifully unique real life story on this list.

man on wire

“Hot Coffee”
If you were alive in the ’90s, you’ve heard the story of the woman who drove with coffee in her lap and sued McDonald’s. It’s practically an urban myth. But did you know that she sustained burns so intense she had to undergo hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of surgery and receive skin grafts? Did you know she wasn’t even driving? This story is a portrait of the agenda behind tort reform and the perception of “frivolous” lawsuits.

hot coffee

“Invisible War”
Tracking the rape epidemic in the military, “The Invisible War” exposes not only the pervasiveness of sexual assault, but the flaws of the system that perpetuate it and blame victims instead of granting them justice.

invisible

“Blackfish”
You’ve probably already heard everything there is to be heard about this “hauntingly beautiful nonfiction film.” Anyway, it’s on Netflix. Watch it.

blackfish

12 Mind-Blowing Documentaries On Netflix Right Now.

Antarctic ice shelf melt ‘lowest EVER recorded, global warming is NOT eroding it’ • The Register.

 

Scientists at the British Antarctic Survey say that the melting of the Pine Island Glacier ice shelf in Antarctica has suddenly slowed right down in the last few years, confirming earlier research which suggested that the shelf’s melt does not result from human-driven global warming.

The Pine Island Glacier in West Antarctica and its associated sea ice shelf is closely watched: this is because unlike most of the sea ice around the austral continent, its melt rate has seemed to be accelerating quickly since scientists first began seriously studying it in the 1990s.

Many researchers had suggested that this was due to human-driven global warming, which appeared to be taking place rapidly at that time (though it has since gone on hold for 15 years or so, a circumstance which science is still assimilating).

However back in 2009 the British Antarctic Survey sent its Autosub robot probe under the shelf (famously powered by some 5,000 ordinary alkaline D-cell batteries on each trip beneath the ice, getting through no less than four tonnes of them during the research). The Autosub survey revealed that a previously unknown marine ridge lay below the shelf, over which the icepack had for millennia been forced to grind its way en route to the ocean. However in relatively recent times the ice had finally so ground down the ridge that the sea could flow in between shelf and ridge, freeing the ice to move much faster and warming it too.

As we reported at the time, this caused BAS boffins to suggest that the observed accelerating ice flow and melt seen since the ’90s was actually a result of the ridge’s erosion and sea ingress, rather than global warming.

Now, the latest BAS research has revealed that rather than accelerating, “oceanic melting of the ice shelf into which the glacier flows decreased by 50 per cent between 2010 and 2012”.

The BAS goes on to explain:

Observations made in January 2012, and reported now in [hefty boffinry mag] Science, show that ocean melting of the glacier was the lowest ever recorded. The top of the thermocline (the layer separating cold surface water and warm deep waters) was found to be about 250 metres deeper compared with any other year for which measurements exist.

This lowered thermocline reduces the amount of heat flowing over the ridge. High resolution simulations of the ocean circulation in the ice shelf cavity demonstrate that the ridge blocks the deepest ocean waters from reaching the thickest ice …

In January 2012 the dramatic cooling of the ocean around the glacier is believed to be due to an increase in easterly winds caused by a strong La Ninã event in the tropical Pacific Ocean.

Dr Pierre Dutrieux of the BAS adds, bluntly:

“We found ocean melting of the glacier was the lowest ever recorded, and less than half of that observed in 2010. This enormous, and unexpected, variability contradicts the widespread view that a simple and steady ocean warming in the region is eroding the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.”

The Science paper can be read by subscribers to the journal here. The BAS announcement of the results can be read here. Readers unfamiliar with the rules of the climate game should note that the term “climate variability” as used in those documents means for this purpose “climate effects not caused by humans”. ®

 

Think this article is evil? Click here first

The usual suspects will no doubt choose to play the man rather than the ball here and complain that this article is an example of cherry-picking by an evil climate “denier”, probably funded by the Koch brothers and unqualified to write on climate matters – and also that we never point out other research suggesting that in fact the Antarctic sheet will shortly slide off into sea inundating us all in movie-plot menace style.

Some notes on that:

1) We here on The Register climate desk actually do offer plenty of standard doom coverage – knock yourselves out, green readers. At the moment it is mostly not nearly as much read as the sceptical stuff. That latter may serve to illustrate the fact that reputable research from top boffins like this, suggesting that the human race is perhaps not imminently menaced by carbon emissions, is news – whereas the idea that it is imminently menaced is rather old hat.

2) Your correspondent “denies” nothing. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, plain and simple, and massive releases of it will obviously warm the atmosphere up to some degree. How much remains pretty uncertain: and the consequences of this uncertain warming in terms of sea levels, crop yields etc are very uncertain indeed. But it could be true that carbopocalypse is upon us – just as it could be true that we face species extinction or global disaster in the coming century from an asteroid or comet strike, or global pandemic, or some other threat.

3) What is really a lot more certain – and this is admitted by hardline greens – is that a shift to all or mostly renewable power means incredibly expensive energy and abandonment of economic growth. That means that the great majority of the human race, including many rich westerners who today live in reasonable comfort, must henceforth descend into/remain in miserable poverty under such a plan. Expensive luxuries such as welfare states and pensioners, proper healthcare (watch out for that pandemic), reasonable public services, affordable manufactured goods and transport, decent personal hygiene, space programmes (watch out for the meteor!) etc etc will all have to go if there is to be no economic growth. It won’t be a painless matter of buying a G-Wiz, insulating the loft and getting rid of some small, cheap government departments like the nuclear weapons programme.

4) It is very likely, then, that the suggested climate cure will cause more misery than the disease. Sea defences capable of dealing with a 1m rise would be very, very cheap by comparison and a lot of farmers would actually be better off under global warming.

5) As to the ad hominem criticism. Your humble correspondent today, it is true, holds no PhD in climatology, pays only occasional visits to the climate beat over relatively recent times, and – horror – for a long time was not even a journalist (!). However the idea that this means I must not report on climate-related matters while normal environment or “science” correspondents can would seem pretty silly. Many such normal correspondents visibly don’t even understand what a Watt is, how windfarms are paid for, etc etc. Frankly, if my climate/energy reporting is ignorant or activist, it is much less so than most.

6) The more general idea that The Register must not report on climate matters (unless, presumably, we do so in a politically correct way) falls under the eternal “where’s the IT angle?” complaint and will not be given a lot of sympathy. We’ve always been “Sci/Tech news for the World”, remember.

7) Koch brothers/oil industry funding. The only money we at The Reg have ever had that you could put even close to this are a couple of minor ad deals with the Norwegian government petro firm, Statoil. Those ads sought to suggest that Blighty might like to buy more relatively clean and reliable natural gas to help fund Norway’s social miracles – as opposed to turning to coal or buying unreliable supplies from the Kremlin to fund weapons programmes and oppression. That ad money was not enough to be important to The Register commercially and involved no influence whatsoever on editorial stance – none was so much as hinted at. Your correspondent personally has never received a penny from writing about climate/energy issues other than as part of a Register salary.

8) Given all the above, comments on this site which just say “Lewis is evil” or “you know this is all utter guff” or in particular which show signs of being astroturf are, yes, liable to be suppressed. Play nice, commentards – especially new commentards.

Note from your friendly Mods

We’ve shut down the comments thread due to moderation burden… But before you cry foul, please be advised that moderators will never nix a comment merely because they find your argument “unacceptable” or “can’t handle the truth” or don’t agree with you. Hogwash. We love to hear your opinions, are keen to see you “show your work” in terms of what you’ve read to reach them, are happy to see you engage in reasoned arguments, rebuttals, extensions et cetera. However, there will be no name-calling, and no calling each other liars or idiots or brain-damaged and the like. For pity’s sake, address the argument, not the man (or woman). Our comments section is lively and it is visited by many bright individuals, so while I understand the topic is emotive, I put it to you that even the cleverest of put-downs is not as good as a killer argument.

Landscheidt cycles…..  Buffoon! Landscheidt cycles…..

Climate change fossil fuels emissions temperature Shaun Lovejoy.

If you disagree you are a bad person…..

Or worse a conspiracy nut!

Charles Koch: I’m Fighting to Restore a Free Society – WSJ.com.

Solar Cycle Progression and Prediction.

Latest Sunspot number prediction

Dr. Jeff Masters’ WunderBlog : Camille of 1969 Downgraded to Second Strongest Landfalling U.S. Hurricane | Weather Underground.

How the fuck is “climate change / global warming” ever going to set a hurricane record unless we start rewriting history!

And these stupid cunts call themselves scientists!  Their degrees should be downgraded to an A.S. or just a head up their ASS degree…..

 

On the night of August 17, 1969, mighty Category 5 Hurricane Camille smashed into the Mississippi coast with incredible fury, bringing the largest U.S. storm surge on record–an astonishing 24.6 feet in Pass Christian, Mississippi (a record since beaten by 2005’s Hurricane Katrina.) Camille barreled up the East Coast and dumped prodigious rains of 12 – 20 inches with isolated amounts up to 31″ over Virginia and West Virginia, with most of the rain falling in just 3 – 5 hours. The catastrophic flash flooding that resulted killed 113 people, and the 143 people the storm killed on the Gulf Coast brought Camille’s death toll to 256, making it the 15th deadliest hurricane in U.S. history. Up until now, Camille’s landfall intensity had been rated at 190 mph–the highest on record for an Atlantic hurricane, and second highest on record globally, behind Super Typhoon Haiyan’s 195 mph winds at landfall in the Philippines in November 2013. However, Camille’s landfall intensity has now been officially downgraded to 175 mph, thanks to a reanalysis effort by Margie Kieper and Hugh Willoughby of Florida International University and Chris Landsea and Jack Beven of NHC. Camille’s central pressure at landfall was lowered from the previous 909 mb to 900 mb, though. The re-analysis results, presented Tuesday at the American Meteorological Society’s 31st Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology , puts Camille in second place for the strongest landfalling hurricane in U.S. history. The top spot is now held by the Great 1935 Labor Day Hurricane that hit the Florida Keys, which reanalysis showed had 185 mph winds and a central pressure of 892 mb at landfall. The only other Category 5 hurricanes on record to hit the U.S. were 1992’s Hurricane Andrew (165 mph winds and a 922 mb central pressure) and the 1928 “San Felipe” Hurricane in Puerto Rico (160 mph winds, 931 mb central pressure.) Category 5 hurricanes have maximum sustained winds of 156 mph or greater. Revisions to Camille were accomplished by obtaining the original observations from ships, weather stations, coastal radars, Navy/Air Force/Environmental Science Services Administration (ESSA) Hurricane Hunter aircraft reconnaissance planes, ESSA/NASA satellite imagery, and by analyzing Camille based upon our understanding of hurricanes today. (ESSA is now the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration–NOAA.)


Figure 1. Hurricane Camille as seen on Sunday, August 17, 1969, about eight hours before making landfall on the Mississippi coast. At the time, Camille was a peak-strength Category 5 storm with 175 mph winds. Image credit: NOAA/NCDC.


Figure 2. Ships beached by Hurricane Camille’s record storm surge in Mississippi. Image credit: NOAA photo library.

Hurricane Audrey of 1957 Downgraded to a Category 3
A reanalysis effort on the 1955 – 1964 Atlantic hurricane seasons is also underway, and Sandy Delgado of the Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies (CIMAS) in Miami, FL reported on Tuesday that Hurricane Audrey, which had previously been rated as the only June Category 4 Atlantic hurricane, has now lost that distinction. Audrey’s top winds at landfall were downgraded to Category 3 status, from 145 mph to 120 mph, which still makes it the strongest landfalling June Atlantic hurricane on record (though Hurricane Alma passed just west of Key West on June 8, 1966 as a Category 3 storm with 125 mph winds.) Audrey killed 416 people in Texas and Louisiana, making it the 7th deadliest hurricane in U.S. history. Delgado’s analysis also found twelve previously unrecognized tropical storms from the 1955 – 1964 period.


Figure 3. Hurricane Audrey near landfall on June 27, 1957. At the time, Audrey was a Category 3 storm with 120 mph winds. Image credit: NOAA.

Reanalysis of 1946 – 1950 hurricanes completed
HURDAT, the official Atlantic hurricane database, has now been updated with a reanalysis of the 1946 to 1950 hurricane seasons. This was an active period for hurricanes, with 13 striking the continental United States (an average five year span would have about nine U.S. hurricane impacts.) Five of the 13 were major hurricanes at U.S. landfall, and all five struck Florida. These are a Category 4 hurricane in Fort Lauderdale in 1947, a Category 4 hurricane in Everglades City in 1948, a Category 4 hurricane in Lake Worth in 1949, Category 3 Hurricane Easy in Cedar Key in 1950, and Category 4 Hurricane King in Miami in 1950. Of these, King and the 1948 and 1949 hurricanes were upgraded from a Category 3 to a Category 4 based upon the reanalysis. Having five major hurricanes making landfall in Florida is a record for a five year period, equaled only by the early 2000s. In addition, nine new tropical storms were discovered and added into the database for this five year period. The number of major hurricanes for 1950 was reduced from eight to six, putting that year in second place for the most major hurricanes in one year. The record is now held by 2005, with seven major hurricanes (Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Maria, Rita, Wilma, Beta; thanks go to Mark Cole for bringing this stat to my attention.) Andrew Hagen, Donna Sakoskie, Daniel Gladstein, Sandy Delgado, Astryd Rodriguez, Chris Landsea and the NHC Best Track Change Committee all made substantial contributions toward the reanalysis of the 1946 – 1950 hurricane seasons.

Jeff Masters