12►

Here are some pictures from our house moving project.

I am all for taking care of the planet we live on and believe that we should not be spewing toxins and pollutants into the air, (CO2 is not a pollutant) but I don’t believe that we are responsible for the slight warming trend that we are seeing. The CO2 that we are pumping into the atmosphere has a small effect on the warming of our planet.  The earth is in a constant state of change undergoing thousands of  temperature swings over the past millions of years in its existence, all of which have brought us here today. Many of these swings were warmer and many much colder that we as a species have all endured. Right now we are on a temperature upswing from the last little ice age.   All the current scientific data points to a natural warming trend that also correlates well with natural random cloud cover variations from the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and other natural processes that we do not understand yet.

On a positive note, the global warming trend will result in fewer cold deaths per year which right now far outnumber the amount of heat deaths per year. If our goal is to save lives then warming up a little is good.  Global warming and rising CO2 will help us feed all the starving people by allowing us to grow crops where we could not before. More CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to more vigorous plant growth leading to more CO2 being absorbed and more O2 released which is better for us. Scientists run computer models to tell us what will happen with the environment but they don’t have all the variables accounted for.  This leads to erroneous results that are used to promote a mass hysteria and funding for bogus research. We should in fact be using that money to clean up our environment, infectious diseases, police the offending public that throw garbage out of their car windows, trucks that billow black smoke from their tailpipes, polluting our air. We could use that money to figure out what to do with all our garbage, or just decrease the national debt, etc.

Here is an interesting article from the University of Rochester… 2009-08-14

Changes in Net Flow of Ocean Heat Correlate with Past Climate Anomalies

Physicists at the University of Rochester have combed through data from satellites and ocean buoys and found evidence that in the last 50 years, the net flow of heat into and out of the oceans has changed direction three times. These shifts in the balance of heat absorbed from the sun and radiated from the oceans correlate well with past anomalies that have been associated with abrupt shifts in the earth’s climate, say the researchers. These anomalies include changes in normal storm intensities, unusual land temperatures, and a large drop in salmon populations along the western United States. The physicists also say these changes in ocean heat-flow direction should be taken into account when predicting global climate because the oceans represent 90 percent of the total heat in the earth’s climate system. The study, which will appear in an upcoming issue of Physics Letters A, differs from most previous studies in two ways, the researchers say. First, the physicists look at the overall heat content of the Earth’s climate system, measuring the net balance of radiation from both the sun and Earth. And second, it analyzes more completely the data sets the researchers believe are of the highest quality, and not those that are less robust. “These shifts happened relatively abruptly,” says David Douglass, professor of physics at the University of Rochester, and co-author of the paper. “One, for example, happened between 1976 and 1977, right when a number of other climate-related phenomenona were happening, such as significant changes in U. S. precipitation.” Douglass says the last oceanic shift occurred about 10 years ago, and that the oceans are currently emitting slightly more radiation than they are receiving. The members of the team, which includes Robert Knox, emeritus professor of physics at the University, believe these heat-flux shifts had previously gone unnoticed because no one had analyzed the data as thoroughly as the Rochester team has. The team believes that the oceans may change how much they absorb and radiate depending on factors such as shifts in ocean currents that might change how the deep water and surface waters exchange heat. In addition to the correlation with strange global effects that some scientists suspect were caused by climate shifts, the team says their data shows the oceans are not continuously warming—a conclusion not consistent with the idea that the oceans may be harboring “warming in the pipeline.” Douglass further notes that the team found no correlation between the shifts and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. “An interesting aspect of this research is that no reference to the surface temperature itself is needed,” says Knox. “The heat content data we used, gathered by oceanographers, was gleaned from temperature measurements at various ocean depths up to 750 meters.” The team also found that the radiative imbalance was sufficiently small that it was necessary to consider the effect of geothermal heating. Knox believes this is the first time this additional source of heat has been accounted for in such a model. The team notes that it’s impossible to predict when another shift might occur, but they suspect future shifts might be similar to the three observed. Both Douglass and Knox are continuing to analyze various climate-related data to find any new information or correlations that may have so far gone unnoticed. Contact: Jonathan Sherwood jonathan.sherwood@rochester.edu 585.273.4726 Heres another one:

CNSNews.com

Scientists Rebut Claim That Man Causes Climate Change

Monday, October 12, 2009

By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) – As the world focused on President Barack Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday, a small group of determined scientists gathered in a Senate office building to present evidence backing their claim that climate change is caused not by man but by nature, and that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but the hope for a greener planet.

John Kwapisz, organizer and moderator at the panel discussion, recalled Obama’s speech at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh, Pa., last month as a way of illustrating the dramatic tone used by those who embrace global warming as a dire and eminent threat.

“That so many of us are here today is a recognition that the threat from climate change is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing,” Obama said on Sept. 22 at the summit. “Our generation’s response to this challenge will be judged by history, for if we fail to meet it — boldly, swiftly, and together – we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe.”

“No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change. Rising sea levels threaten every coastline,” Obama said. “More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent. More frequent droughts and crop failures breed hunger and conflict in places where hunger and conflict already thrive.”

“On shrinking islands, families are already being forced to flee their homes as climate refugees,” he said. “The security and stability of each nation and all peoples – our prosperity, our health, and our safety – are in jeopardy. And the time we have to reverse this tide is running out.”

The scientists said they were on Capitol Hill to challenge the president’s claims and show that Mother Nature controls climate around the world and that CO2 in the atmosphere benefits people, plants and animals.

“Nature, not human activity rules the planet,” said Fred Singer, an atmospheric and space physicist and research professor at George Mason University and professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. “And once you’ve decided that on the basis of evidence, then everything else falls into place.”

“A lot of the problems that President Obama seems to be concerned about are no longer a concern,” Singer said.

“When there’s more carbon dioxide put into the air, the plants respond in an astonishing fashion,” said H. Leighton Steward, geologist, environmentalist, author and founder of the Web site plantsneedco2.org.

Steward said that since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in 1860, the amount of CO2 put into the air has increased average plant growth by 12 percent and average tree growth by 18 percent around the world.

“So if we want to green the earth,” Steward said, “we need to put more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It’s the earth’s greatest airborne fertilizer.”

“If we want the ecosystems and the habitats to be more robust and hold more animal life, more plant life, we need to put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,” Steward said, adding that proponents of man-made global warming have given CO2 a bad name.

“It’s now being looked at and called a pollutant. I can tell you, I’ve asked every scientist that I’ve ever run into, chemical expert,” Steward said. “There is not one, I repeat, not one instance in which carbon dioxide is a pollutant.”

Roy W. Spencer, researcher at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, author, and a former senior scientist at NASA, presented his research on natural global warming and cooling, including the role that cloud cover and the sun play in the changes of the earth’s climate.

In keeping with scientific protocol, much of the presentation consisted of graphs, charts, and other data to make the case that much of climate change is the result of natural phenomenon rather than human activities and that any contribution by humans is miniscule.

The event on Capitol Hill was not without a political twist, with some global warming advocates speaking out during the question-and-answer period. One scientist from NASA claimed he was available after the discussion if anyone was interested in hearing the other side of the issue.

Many in the room laughed at his comment, but the crowd that gathered in the Rose Garden just moments earlier heard Obama use his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech as an opportunity to again issue a warning about the threat of global warming.

“We cannot accept the growing threat posed by climate change, which could forever damage the world that we pass on to our children – sowing conflict and famine; destroying coastlines and emptying cities,” Obama said.

Marc Morano, former congressional staffer and founder of the Web site climatedepot.com, told the crowd that he thinks the tide is turning against what he called global warming alarmists. He cited a call by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to hold a global warming trial.

“The Chamber seeks to have a complete trial ‘complete with witnesses, cross-examinations and a judge who would rule, essentially, on whether humans are warming the planet to dangerous effect,’” Morano wrote in an editorial he distributed at the event.

Like this story? Then sign up to receive our free daily E-Brief newsletter

All original CNSNews.com material, copyright 1998-2009 Cybercast News Service.

We’re off again to Hawaii in about a week, this time to stay 17 days. I think this time I may not bring my 500 f4 lens like I did every other time. I’m trying to travel a little lighter than usual and maybe do more landscape, waterfall and macro shots this time around. I know I’ll regret not having my favorite lens but I’ll make do without this time. Substituting, I’ll use the 100-400 zoom, not the sharpest lens in the bag but decent enough under the right conditions.

I’m thinking about a new series of shots titled “Tropical Textures”. It will feature macro and non macro pictures of plants perhaps with insect elements as well and textures of back and front lit leaves and flowers.

I decided in the last minute to include the 500F4 and I am glad I did. Minor inconvenience of weight, major increase of image quality.