If anyone recalls the old wooden signs across the USA during many years past, They will remember they all led to the last sign which proclaimed ‘BURMA-SHAVE’. This latest blog is one of those signs.
Also check out http://cretaceous.wordpress.com/ Global Warming, like this?
The next one is http://blogengeezer.wordpress.com/ Our Earth
the last one is http://daflikkers.blogspot.com/ ”The last shall be first and the first shall be last” Only use this if it is after midnight and you just can not sleep. The weekly adventures of ‘Blogengeezer’ are posted there.
The reason I use this term ‘Interglacial’,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial
reflects on this ‘Anti’ Global Warming aspect that is so rare in the history of Earth, as to become noteworthy. There have been only about four to five (‘Huronian’ debateable) Ice Ages, with the possibility of the ‘Cryogenic’ period (see last link near bottom) having two back to back events. You have got to love this period, it further prepared the Earth for life.
‘Ice ages with Polar Icesheets’, as well as the ‘Interglacials’ that accompany them, are extremely rare in the history of Earth.
Of course the far Northern as well as the far Southern, Oceans were totally frozen over for even the lessor of the durations, as well.
Historically they start and end quite rapidly. 
Thats a good thing!
The maximum extent of glacial ice in the north polar area during the ’Pleistocene Epoch’. (picture above) Notice Canada, the Northern Province was under approximately 2 miles of ice. British columbia was totally submerged in permanent Ice as well. No ‘Empress Hotel’ High Tea in Victoria on Vancouver Island. Chicago was totally buried in Ice, also thousands of feet thick. I knew that place was cold in winter but that was ridiculus. New York was no ‘Walk in the Park’ either. As a matter of fact, Central Park rocks still show the scratches from the last glacier. The far Eastern Seaboard was an Ice Shelf. The Cod would have loved it. To say nothing of the Polar Bears. Come to think of it maybe most Bears were somewhat ’Polar’ during that time in the Northern Hemisphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene Approximately 30% of the Earths surface was covered in Ice. Greenland and Canada along with the Northern and midwest USA were a frozen Ice Sheet. (The Laurentide Ice Sheet) The end of the Pleistocene began the beginning of the Holocene 11,550 years ago and the beginning of our comfortable new home during an ‘Interglacial’. Welcome to our Holocene http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene and Global Warming. Isn’t it nice in comparison to the ‘Pleistocene’ conditions we just came out of?
Of course we are still coming out of the last ’Ice Age’ at this time in History. Theory has been advanced, that we are in the last stages of a 28 thousand year Ice Age. The Great Lakes of North America were ‘Plowed out’ by that last one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_glaciation as recently as ten thousand years ago. The ‘Laurentide Ice Sheet’ that covered most of North America was during one of those rare chilly times in Earths History. The Rocky Mountains had numerous glaciers. I loved this one, the skiing was absolutely fabulous. ‘Snorkle deep’ powder, to die for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurentide_ice_sheet
This stage of ’our’ current Interglacial, means it is getting warmer of course. Remember we are still in ‘The Holocene’ Period and the glaciers are melting again, quite rapidly, just as they have done all through Earth’s History. History also has shown that sometimes they reverse quite quickly as well. A phenomenon of start, stop, reverse then continue back in the other direction.
http://www.isthereglobalcooling.com/
”The question should not be ‘what is making the Earth warm’, but ‘what in this solar system, makes it so so darned cold periodically’?”
I loved the movie ‘Ice Age’. The last Ice age (10,000 years ago) by common scientific theory, has not truly ended.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
True our Polar Ice caps, which are extremely rare in Earths history are still intact and shrinking. They do that during an ‘Interglacial’ following a ‘Glacial’ period, as the Earth heats of course. Included in these studies are the numerous varying cycles of warming and cooling documented by science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age As you read this document realise that the ‘politically motivated’ IPCC has the first paragraph to themselves. Also further down in this article is, highly disputed Ruddimans ‘Anthropogenic Theory’, basically just humans with syphilis and what all related. Oh sure Mr Ruddiman, humans cause problems but I think you are stretching it there, seeing as the world population was miniscule in comparison to today. The rest of the article just tells the story with scientific observations and records over thousands of years and that’s the way it should be told. It got extremely cold, extremely fast. We would not have liked it at all.
Did you know that New York Harbor froze solid in 1780? That was around the late middle of the last 400 year cooling cycle. What in the solar system caused that? About the years The US Continental Army under General George Washington, had a very rough winter in a place called Valley Forge. It has been getting generally warmer ever since. That Administration must have been really hated….by the British for sure.
This next linked one is really drastic and I don’t think that even the ‘Hot Air Politicians’ could melt it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth
Follow the links for the ‘Rest of the Story’. That is if you do not mind ’The Facts’ confusing the Politically Driven Media Catastrophism, issue.
Study Climatology, Geology, Meteorology, Engineering and the other Hard sciences and improve the worlds knowledge, in the meantime, watch the entire 5 part series. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA
In the movie Ice Age, the preview antics of ‘Scrat’ were interesting. Well this part of the movie was to receive acclaim due to the announcement soon after, that the ‘Scrat’, ‘Squirrel Rat’ did in fact exist. The ‘Squirrel Rat’ was found somewhere in Indonesia alive and well after it had been announced as ‘totally extinct’. Now see how this world can actually do magic as well as ‘Seigfreid and Roy’ did, even better, with more attention to detail.
By: blogengeezer on August 11, 2007
at 3:31 am
We have a local scientist at Sandia Labs that published a 3,000 year study of the weather patterns of the American Southwest. His studies based on Geology, Fauna and Flora Fossil records showed a yearly average rainfall of just over 1 inch.
We have been averaging over six inches per year and climbing, as long as human records have been kept, which is nanoseconds in earth’s time.
When factions talk about ‘drought’ they have not a clue of what ‘drought’ really is. Political motivation is a powerful blindfold to facts.
By: blogengeezer on December 16, 2007
at 10:33 pm
Well as we are experiencing some really cold temperatures lately (snow in Las Vegas), and the latest news from reliable sources admits that 1998 was the warmest of this cycle.
With 1934 being much warmer of course, but no one mentions that fact when money is to be made from the AGW ‘Gang Green’ fanatics.
No one mentions the -70 record low over the polar route, that crystalised the fuel in the Heatherow bound airliner, causing it to suffer fuel starvation on landing approach. Kind of bellied in a little short of the runway, last winter, it did.
Now we have this latest revelation of Arctic sea ice demise being grossly exagerated for even more political acclaim.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/rumors-of-the-death-of-arctic-sea-ice-greatly-exaggerated/
By: blogengeezer on December 23, 2008
at 3:04 am
Floods,
hurricanes, draught and civil unrest. They’re all
your fault. Repent now. Stop the production of
CO2 immediately. It’s polluting our planet.
(By the way, breathing creates CO2 and thus is
“pollution.”)
Really? We humans caused all those
problems? Those who believe in
AGW often chide the non-believers as “deniers” (as
if they denied the holocaust or claimed the world were flat)
and attribute their opponents’ denial to an inability to
understand the scientific “facts.”
This ad hominem attack overlooks the really bad “science” and
almost hysterical illogic that is sometimes used to
support the theory of AGW.
What follows is another example. Apparently
anything in support of AGW does not necessarily need to meet
the test of rationality for many of
its supporters. So,
which camp can really claim the logical high
ground? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124424567009790525.html#mod=djemEditorialPage
JUNE 6, 2009 ‘Worse Than Fiction’
Global warming alarmists are fond of
invoking the authority of experts against the skepticism of
supposedly amateur detractors — a.k.a. “deniers.”
So when one of those experts says that a recent report on
the effects of climate change is “worse than fiction,
it is a lie,” the alarmists should, well, be
alarmed.
The latest contretemps pits former U.N.
Secretary General Kofi Annan, now president of
the Geneva-based Global Humanitarian Forum, against Roger
Pielke, Jr., an expert in disaster trends at the University
of Colorado.
Mr. Annan’s outfit issued a lengthy report
late last month warning that climate change-induced
disasters, such as droughts and floods, kill 315,000 each
year and cost $125 billion, numbers it says will rise to
500,000 dead and $340 billion by 2030.
Adding to the gloom,
Mr. Annan predicts “mass starvation, mass migration,
and mass sickness” unless countries agree to “the
most ambitious international agreement ever negotiated”
at a meeting this year in Copenhagen. Even on its
own terms, the numbers here are a lot less scary when put
into context.
Malaria kills an estimated one million people
a year, while AIDS claims an estimated two million. As for
the economic costs, $125 billion is slightly less than the
GDP of New Zealand. Question: Are targeted campaigns using
proven methods to spare the world three million AIDS and
malaria deaths a year a better use of scarce resources than
a multitrillion-dollar attempt to re-engineer the global
economy and save, at most, a tenth that number?
We’d say yes. But the Annan report deserves even closer
scrutiny as an example of the sleight of hand that so often
goes with the politics of global warming. Unlike starvation,
climate change does not usually kill anyone directly.
Instead, the study’s authors assume a four-step chain of
causation, beginning with increased emissions, moving to
climate-change effects, thence to physical changes like
melting glaciers and desertification, and finally arriving
at human effects like malnutrition and “risk of
instability and armed conflicts.”
This is a heroic set of assumptions, even if you agree that emissions
are causing adverse changes in climate. Take the supposedly
heightened risk of conflict: The authors suggest that
“inter-clan fighting in Somalia” is a product of
climate change. A likelier explanation is the collapse of a
functioning Somali government and the rise of jihadists in
the region.
Enter Mr. Pielke, who, we hasten to
add, does not speak for us (nor we for him). But given the
headlines the Annan report has garnered, his views deserve
amplification. Writing in the Prometheus science policy
blog, Mr. Pielke calls the report a “methodological
embarrassment” and a “poster child for how to lie
with statistics” that “does a disservice” to
those who take climate change issues seriously.
Mr. Pielke’s critique begins by citing a recent
peer-reviewed paper by three German researchers that
“it is generally difficult to obtain valid quantitative
findings about the role of socioeconomics and climate change
in loss increases.” Reasons for this, the researchers
explain, include “the stochastic [random] nature of
weather extremes, a shortage of quality data, and the role
of various other potential factors that act in parallel and
interact.”
The report does admit to a “significant margin of error,” but this hardly
excuses the sloppiness of its methodology. “To get
around the fact that there has been no attribution of the
relationship of GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions and
disasters,”
Mr. Pielke notes, the Annan “report engages in a
very strange comparison of earthquake and
weather disasters in 1980 and 2005. The first question that
comes to mind is, why? They are comparing phenomena with
many ‘moving parts’ over a short time frame, and
attributing 100% of the resulting difference to human-caused
climate change. This boggles the mind.”
It gets worse. The Annan report cites Hurricane Katrina as a
case study in the economic consequences of climate change.
Yet there’s not even remotely conclusive evidence that
temperature increases have any effect on the intensity or
frequency of hurricanes. The authors also claim that global
warming is aggravating the El Niño effect, which has
“ruined livelihoods, led to lost lives and impaired
national economies.”
Yet new research “questions the notion
that El Niños have been getting stronger because
of global warming,” according to Ben Giese of Texas
A&M.
We could go on, except we’re worried
about the blood pressure of readers who are climate-change
true believers. Our only question is, if the case for global
warming is so open and shut, why the need for a report as
disingenuous as Mr. Kofi Annan’s?
added note:
One interesting reason may be that the worlds finances
revolve around investments. In past years those investments
have been highly profitable.The investments that were once
‘common sense’, now, due to governmental regulations and taxation,
no longer bring the large returns.
The forced mandates proclaimed by many in Power, to ‘Save the World’ are
now the investors dream. The returns are astronomical for those
using this system to their advantage….
The consumers and taxpayers, will not be nearly as fortunate..
By: blogengeezer on June 18, 2009
at 7:54 pm