Indonesia's Climate Follows the Sun

Look to matahari (the sun in Bahasa Indonesia) rather than CO2 as the key player in Indonesia's climate.
November 25

QUOTE: a survey of 539 scientific papers containing the words "global climate change" and published between January 2004 and February 2007 found not a single one that provided any evidence that "global warming" would be catastrophic. It does not matter how many scientists or politicians say that more CO2 will cause a catastrophe. To true scientists, what matters is whether any real-world data support the idea.

QUOTE: Professor Mezak Ratag of the Indonesia National Agency for Meteorology & Geophysics says,
"The output from different models is often different and sometimes contradictory. For example, [a UK climate model] predicts increases in temperature and decreases in precipitation for Indonesia, while [a German model] predicts an increase in both temperature and precipitation."



CO2 is not an air pollutant. It is plant food. All life on Earth depends on it. It is natural. It forms the bubbles in bread, champagne, and Coca-Cola. You breathe it out, and plants breathe it in.

The Earth contains a lot of CO2, but the atmosphere contains so little that the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) rightly calls CO2 a "trace gas". A scientific mystery is why the air does not hold more CO2 than it does. Half a billion years ago, there was almost 20 times today's CO2 concentration.

Most farmers would prefer to grow crops under much-higher concentrations of CO2 than today's 385 parts per million-less than 1/25 of 1 percent of the atmosphere. To feed the world, low CO2 concentration is not such a great idea. High concentrations are better, and they cause no harm. Experiments have shown that even delicate plants such as orchids thrive at CO2 concentrations of 10,000 ppm.

That is why U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia has declared that if CO2 is to be labeled an "air pollutant", then so must Frisbees and flatulence.

What about the danger of overheating the Earth by CO2? Al Gore is spending $300 million telling us "global warming" will be a catastrophe. Yet a survey of 539 scientific papers containing the words "global climate change" and published between January 2004 and February 2007 found not a single one that provided any evidence that "global warming" would be catastrophic. It does not matter how many scientists or politicians say that more CO2 will cause a catastrophe. To true scientists, what matters is whether any real-world data support the idea.

If CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas, we would have seen a great warming trend in Indonesian temperature history. We haven't. Recent temperatures, according to the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, have been scarcely warmer than they were 70 to 100 years ago. Instead of a strong warming trend, the Indonesian data are dominated by year-to-year changes and natural oscillations every 50 to 100 years.

It is remarkable to find documents on the Internet, circulated by WWF-Indonesia, trying to scare the unsuspecting public by saying the temperature in Indonesia has "increased by 0.3� C" over the twentieth century and that one can expect additional warming of 0.1 to 0.3� C per decade for the next 20 to 100 years.

In a humid, equatorial nation such as Indonesia, with annual temperatures between 23� and 32� C, there is little chance of seeing those predicted warming trends, or any of the predicted changes in rainfall.

Professor Mezak Ratag of the Indonesia National Agency for Meteorology & Geophysics says,
"The output from different models is often different and sometimes contradictory. For example, [a UK climate model] predicts increases in temperature and decreases in precipitation for Indonesia, while [a German model] predicts an increase in both temperature and precipitation."

When climate models say that both increased and decreased rainfall are possible, they are not actually making any predictions.Worse, climate scientists from Stanford University and the University of Washington in the United States recently admitted that the islands of Java and Bali are not even represented as land in many global-circulation models used by the IPCC.

The 100-year mean temperatures over the period 1901-2000 for March-April-May, June-July-August, September-October-November, and December-January-February are 26.2, 25.6, 26.1, and 25.9� C, respectively. This confirms the clear dependence of the basic climatology of Indonesia on the arrival and relative intensity of the sun overhead. More sun means warmer weather, and vice versa. It is as simple as that.
More sun also means more rain, except that during the December-January-February season there is an additional large contribution from the northwest monsoon and the southward migration of the inter-tropical rainbelt.

Look to matahari (the sun in Bahasa Indonesia) rather than CO2 as the key player in Indonesia's climate.

Cutting CO2 emissions by sharply curtailing the use of gasoline and other fossil fuels will make no difference to the weather. It will merely lead the foolish to feel good about "saving the planet". Even if the planet needed saving, all proposed mitigation measures would be futile. It would be cheaper and less irresponsible to adapt to warmer weather as-or rather if-necessary.

We have already seen food prices double and triple worldwide because the "green" movement told us biofuels would "save the planet". Science, however, demonstrates that biofuels have a bigger carbon footprint than does gasoline.

Foolish mitigation measures that owe everything to political fashion and nothing to scientific rigor are already harming the world's poor. It is time to stop the hysteria about CO2 before anyone else gets hurt-or even killed.

Willie Soon is a geoscientist at the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. He will address the International Symposium on Climate and Weather of the Sun-Earth System, hosted by Indonesia's National Agency for Meteorology & Geophysics in Jakarta November 24-26.

Christopher Monckton is chief policy adviser to the Science and Public Policy Institute in the USA. (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org).

This article has been republished from Indonesia Matters with permission from Dr Soon.

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/11/indonesia%e2%80%99s-climate-follows-the-sun/#more-3330



Warmest Regards

Bonzo

Ya know, I didn't used to think there was much to global warming.
But when some scrofulous retard posts thousands of denials of the phenomenon, that makes me think there's something to it.
I will investigate further.
Thanks, boozn.

"Fellatio Drunkerton" wrote in message

Ya know, I didn't used to think there was much to global warming.
But when some scrofulous retard posts thousands of denials of the phenomenon, that makes me think there's something to it.
I will investigate further.
Thanks, boozn.

And thank you for displaying an open mind. That didn't hurt did it?

Warmest Regards
Bonzo

On Nov 26, 4:05 pm, "bnzoo" wrote:

Look to matahari (the sun in Bahasa Indonesia) rather than CO2 as the key player in Indonesia's climate.
November 25
QUOTE: a survey of 539 scientific papers containing the words "global climate change" and published between January 2004 and February 2007 found not a single one that provided any evidence that "global warming" would be catastrophic. It does not matter how many scientists or politicians say that more CO2 will cause a catastrophe. To true scientists, what matters is whether any real-world data support the idea.
QUOTE: Professor Mezak Ratag of the Indonesia National Agency for Meteorology & Geophysics says,
"The output from different models is often different and sometimes contradictory. For example, [a UK climate model] predicts increases in temperature and decreases in precipitation for Indonesia, while [a German model] predicts an increase in both temperature and precipitation."
CO2 is not an air pollutant. It is plant food. All life on Earth depends on it. It is natural. It forms the bubbles in bread, champagne, and Coca-Cola. You breathe it out, and plants breathe it in.
The Earth contains a lot of CO2, but the atmosphere contains so little that the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) rightly calls CO2 a "trace gas". A scientific mystery is why the air does not hold more CO2 than it does. Half a billion years ago, there was almost 20 times today's CO2 concentration.
Most farmers would prefer to grow crops under much-higher concentrations of CO2 than today's 385 parts per million-less than 1/25 of 1 percent of the atmosphere. To feed the world, low CO2 concentration is not such a great idea. High concentrations are better, and they cause no harm. Experiments have shown that even delicate plants such as orchids thrive at CO2 concentrations of 10,000 ppm.
That is why U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia has declared that if CO2 is to be labeled an "air pollutant", then so must Frisbees and flatulence.
What about the danger of overheating the Earth by CO2? Al Gore is spending $300 million telling us "global warming" will be a catastrophe. Yet a survey of 539 scientific papers containing the words "global climate change" and published between January 2004 and February 2007 found not a single one that provided any evidence that "global warming" would be catastrophic. It does not matter how many scientists or politicians say that more CO2 will cause a catastrophe. To true scientists, what matters is whether any real-world data support the idea.
If CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas, we would have seen a great warming trend in Indonesian temperature history. We haven't. Recent temperatures, according to the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, have been scarcely warmer than they were 70 to 100 years ago. Instead of a strong warming trend, the Indonesian data are dominated by year-to-year changes and natural oscillations every 50 to 100 years.
It is remarkable to find documents on the Internet, circulated by WWF-Indonesia, trying to scare the unsuspecting public by saying the temperature in Indonesia has "increased by 0.3� C" over the twentieth century and that one can expect additional warming of 0.1 to 0.3� C per decade for the next 20 to 100 years.
In a humid, equatorial nation such as Indonesia, with annual temperatures between 23� and 32� C, there is little chance of seeing those predicted warming trends, or any of the predicted changes in rainfall.
Professor Mezak Ratag of the Indonesia National Agency for Meteorology & Geophysics says,
"The output from different models is often different and sometimes contradictory. For example, [a UK climate model] predicts increases in temperature and decreases in precipitation for Indonesia, while [a German model] predicts an increase in both temperature and precipitation."
When climate models say that both increased and decreased rainfall are possible, they are not actually making any predictions.Worse, climate scientists from Stanford University and the University of Washington in the United States recently admitted that the islands of Java and Bali are not even represented as land in many global-circulation models used by the IPCC.
The 100-year mean temperatures over the period 1901-2000 for March-April-May, June-July-August, September-October-November, and December-January-February are 26.2, 25.6, 26.1, and 25.9� C, respectively. This confirms the clear dependence of the basic climatology of Indonesia on the arrival and relative intensity of the sun overhead. More sun means warmer weather, and vice versa. It is as simple as that.
More sun also means more rain, except that during the December-January-February season there is an additional large contribution from the northwest monsoon and the southward migration of the inter-tropical rainbelt.
Look to matahari (the sun in Bahasa Indonesia) rather than CO2 as the key player in Indonesia's climate.
Cutting CO2 emissions by sharply curtailing the use of gasoline and other fossil fuels will make no difference to the weather. It will merely lead the foolish to feel good about "saving the planet". Even if the planet needed saving, all proposed mitigation measures would be futile. It would be cheaper and less irresponsible to adapt to warmer weather as-or rather if-necessary.
We have already seen food prices double and triple worldwide because the "green" movement told us biofuels would "save the planet". Science, however, demonstrates that biofuels have a bigger carbon footprint than does gasoline.
Foolish mitigation measures that owe everything to political fashion and nothing to scientific rigor are already harming the world's poor. It is time to stop the hysteria about CO2 before anyone else gets hurt-or even killed.
Willie Soon is a geoscientist at the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. He will address the International Symposium on Climate and Weather of the Sun-Earth System, hosted by Indonesia's National Agency for Meteorology & Geophysics in Jakarta November 24-26.
Christopher Monckton is chief policy adviser to the Science and Public Policy Institute in the USA. (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org).
This article has been republished from Indonesia Matters with permission from Dr Soon.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/11/indonesia%e2%80%99s-climate-...

whether CO2 causes global warming is left to debate, one can't deny huge mass of ice has been melted in north pole yearly and bears are starving - where I live, it rains less, water recesses, wild fires are more frequent, winter is warmer.

"bnzoo" wrote

QUOTE: a survey of 539 scientific papers containing the words "global climate change" and published between January 2004 and February 2007 found not a single one that provided any evidence that "global warming" would be catastrophic.

Ahahahahahahah... That's because the papers weren't randomly selected, and because the science of warming is so fully integrated in every other scientific field, that the term crops up everywhere, even in the science of molecular entomology.
Poor, Desparate Bonzo. Wants so much for his KKKonservative ideology to suceed, he will say anything, but all it has done is destroy the collapsing AmeriKKKan state.
Here is what his AmeriKKKan brothers are saying.

November 25, 2008
Bloodshed and Death is coming to American Businessmen
In my 46 years on this Earth, I have never had to write such a frightening Op-Ed piece as this. Sadly, the state of affairs inside the US and its business community is such that remaining silent is no longer an option.
Put bluntly, bloodshed and death is coming. Brutal, violent, merciless. Perpetrated with malice aforethought. If I am right, many of you business folks - especially the folks at the top - are going to be the ones doing the bleeding and the dying.
How we got to this point is simple. How we stop it from happening is not so simple; but there is still a small window of opportunity which may help avert this.
It began with NAFTA and GATT. The whole "free trade" movement was sales-pitched to us common folk as a way to break down trade barriers so American products could be sold overseas with greater ease and competitiveness. The pitch told us that it would help American companies and increase American jobs. That sales pitch was a deliberate lie.
What was really afoot was a way for American corporations to significantly reduce their manufacturing costs by opening state-of-the-art facilities in third world countries, hiring third-world workers at pittance pay with no benefits, while maintaining sales prices. This allowed you folks to pocket huge additional profits.
Next, you corporate folks decided to jump on the "Diversity" bandwagon, Diversity replaced merit. Corporate productivity slid but no one could dare step up to say why for fear of being fired as a racist.
Diversity became and end unto itself and ultimately it was the straight, white male who suffered most. Straight white males were intentionally passed-over for jobs and promotions. When "downsizing" took place, it was the straight, white male cut loose so "diversity" could be maintained.
The last straw - and by far the worst betrayal - was the intentional use of illegal aliens and the intentional importation of foreign, cheap labor under the H1-B Visa system. Companies even went so far as to send their Human Resources people to seminars offered by law firms so they could learn precisely how to disqualify Americans for available jobs, in favor of importing foreigners!
Well, ladies and gentlemen of the business community, the chickens have now come home to roost.
Vast numbers of unemployed Americans, unable to pay their mortgages after losing jobs, began defaulting, causing foreclosures to rise.
Vast numbers of illegal aliens who were also given mortgages (by banks who feared being labeled racists if they declined to lend), defaulted on their mortgages too. This caused even more foreclosures.
As foreclosures grew, they affected the value of nearby homes whose owners suddenly found out they owed more than their homes were worth! When their mortgage companies demanded large, lump sum payments to pay down the excess mortgage, those folks could not pay and. . . . were foreclosed upon.
Long story short, these foreclosures caused the banking system to contract, which caused the credit markets to dry up, which caused everything else to go in the crapper. That's where we are today.
Where we're heading is unlike anything you can imagine.
Unlike the great depression of the 1930's, people today are quite well educated. We know exactly how this trouble happened and exactly who is to blame: YOU. The corporate hot shots who put profit over country; who put greed above loyalty and who cared not one wit about who was displaced, who was harmed, or who got shafted.
Unlike the great depression, people today have lost a lot more than just their jobs and homes. They've lost their retirement nest eggs, their children's college funds and worst of all, any chance at a better future. Therein lies a recipe for violence;. and folks, violence is coming - right at you.
You see, folks of today understand that allowing the great depression of the 1930's to take place without retribution against those who caused it, set the stage for this latest financial screw job.
As any parent can tell you, when being nice over bad behavior fails to stop such behavior, one must resort to punishing bad behavior to prevent future bad acts.
Punishment for what you have done is your due and folks out here in the real world are preparing to deliver it - right to your physical person on the doorstep of your offices and homes.
Thanks to the internet, we know who the CEO's and CFO's of all your companies are. We know who is on every Board of Directors. Thanks to information services like Intellius.com, we also know where all of you live. ALL of you.
Americans who have lost everything, have no reservation whatsoever about coming after you to inflict violence for wrecking their lives and our nation. In fact, I personally know of a "movement" of several groups actively recruiting the destitute from make-shift homeless centers, with the intention of organizing criminal violence against you. Groups like the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, Nazis and White racist skinheads are seeing staggering growth in membership. I know. I've seen it with my own eyes. And you know what? I agree with "the movement" because I think what you've done stinks.
I will proudly stand with those groups when the time comes.
These groups are folks, right here in America, who have nothing left. They have lost everything, including all hope. They do not fear the police, jail or death. They certainly don't fear you.
More interesting, many of the people now facing utter destitution are US military veterans and they are helping the aforementioned groups prepare for what's coming. Through their contacts in the military, veterans in the groups mentioned above have gained access to automatic weapons, armor piercing ammunition, grenades, C4 plastic explosives, anti-personnel mines, rocket-propelled grenades and more!
I personally know one former US Army Combat Engineer in the National Alliance. I can't even begin to describe how helpful he has been to "the movement."
If you want an example of how frighteningly effective this movement has become, I can tell you for an absolute fact that the US Secret Service had to emergency-deploy eight (8) sniper teams around Grant Park in Chicago, IL on election night because a member of "the movement" was reportedly headed down there with military Mortars to attack and kill Barack Obama and his supporters! That's how bold, how brazen, how incredibly dangerous things are getting!
What good will the police or your corporate security forces be against these types of dedicated and committed, angry people? What good are the "safe rooms" you've built in your homes or office buildings when C4 and RPG's can blow right through them?
Last year, a listener to my talk radio show who is a gunsmith, thought I might like having an illegal silencer for my gun. He built one and shipped it to me! I have pictures to prove it!
Was it illegal? Yes. Did he care? No. Did I care? I won't say.
You have no idea how bad things are getting out here in real America. Trust me, if you don't do something now to step up and help the average people of this country, by the time you find out exactly how bad things are, it will be too late for you.
So I think you corporate folks would do well to seriously reconsider your actions over the past 15 - 20 years and decide whether you're going to help America or continue lining your own pockets? Are you going to bring the jobs back to America or continue using third world labor as your country collapses? Are you going to stop this bad behavior or are you going to have to be punished?
If you need help deciding, just ask yourself this: What good is all your wealth if an uprising of angry white males leaves you too dead to spend it? Oh, and if you think an uprising can't happen here, think again.
The bullet-resistant vests worn by police and your corporate security do not protect them from the paralyzing effects of a Tazer. Once the cops and security people are neutralized, your guns and those of the angry white males can do their thing. Since there are more of us than you, we win.
There's a fight coming. The cops can't stop it. The lawyers can't stop it. The courts can't stop it. The military is spread too thin around the world to be of any consequence and the government is too broke to fund any more homeland security.
But this fight doesn't have to happen. It can be avoided with a little national loyalty and a little compassion.
Get your Board of Directors together and ask what your company can do to help America for the next 24 months? Talk to your stockholders and ask their permission to cut dividends by half for the sole purpose of hiring more AMERICANS to jobs here in America.
Go on TV and tell the public what you're doing to make things better HERE, at home! You can recover from the horrid reputation you've gotten, and help resolve the horrid situation you have created if you'll only take some time to do the right things for the COUNTRY. A little corporate sacrifice will go a long way to help a lot of us little people. The gratitude and admiration it will generate will be priceless.
Of course, you are free to continue being impressed with yourselves as masters of the universe and keep right on doing what you've been doing. If that is your intention, then know now: The jig is up. Either get right with white males and America, or get your affairs in order.
Hal Turner

Here are the global average temperatures since 1958. "o" = trend line.
Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
And most recently the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.
View with mono spaced font.
1958 14.08 *******o*************** 1959 14.06 ********o************ 1960 13.99 *********o****** 1961 14.08 **********o************ 1962 14.04 ***********o******** 1963 14.08 ************o********** 1964 13.79 **===========o 1965 13.89 *********====o 1966 13.97 **************o 1967 14.00 ***************o* 1968 13.96 **************==o 1969 14.08 *****************o***** 1970 14.03 ******************o 1971 13.90 **********=========o 1972 14.00 *****************===o 1973 14.14 ********************o****** 1974 13.92 ***********==========o 1975 13.95 *************=========o 1976 13.84 ******=================o 1977 14.13 ************************o* 1978 14.02 ******************=======o 1979 14.09 ***********************===o 1980 14.18 ***************************o** 1981 14.27 ****************************o******* 1982 14.05 ********************========o 1983 14.26 *****************************o***** 1984 14.09 ***********************=======o 1985 14.06 *********************==========o 1986 14.13 **************************======o 1987 14.27 *********************************o** 1988 14.31 **********************************o**** 1989 14.19 ******************************=====o 1990 14.38 ************************************o******* 1991 14.35 ************************************o**** 1992 14.12 *************************============o 1993 14.14 ****************************===========o 1994 14.24 **********************************=====o 1995 14.38 ****************************************o*** 1996 14.30 **************************************===o 1997 14.40 ******************************************o** 1998 14.57 *******************************************o************* 1999 14.33 ****************************************===o 2000 14.33 ****************************************====o 2001 14.48 *********************************************o***** 2002 14.56 **********************************************o********* 2003 14.55 ***********************************************o******* 2004 14.49 ************************************************o** 2005 14.62 *************************************************o********** 2006 14.54 **************************************************o**** 2007 14.56 ***************************************************o***** -------------------------------------------> Temperature
Correlation Coefficient .8529209
Source NASAS -> http://data.giss.nasa.gov:80/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMu14mBXAs

On Nov 26, 11:01�pm, Sushi Fish wrote:

On Nov 26, 4:05 pm, "bnzoo" wrote:
Look to matahari (the sun in Bahasa Indonesia) rather than CO2 as the key player in Indonesia's climate.
November 25
QUOTE: a survey of 539 scientific papers containing the words "global climate change" and published between January 2004 and February 2007 found not a single one that provided any evidence that "global warming" would be catastrophic. It does not matter how many scientists or politicians say that more CO2 will cause a catastrophe. To true scientists, what matters is whether any real-world data support the idea.
QUOTE: Professor Mezak Ratag of the Indonesia National Agency for Meteorology & Geophysics says,
"The output from different models is often different and sometimes contradictory. For example, [a UK climate model] predicts increases in temperature and decreases in precipitation for Indonesia, while [a German model] predicts an increase in both temperature and precipitation."
CO2 is not an air pollutant. It is plant food. All life on Earth depends on it. It is natural. It forms the bubbles in bread, champagne, and Coca-Cola. You breathe it out, and plants breathe it in.
The Earth contains a lot of CO2, but the atmosphere contains so little that the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) rightly calls CO2 a "trace gas". A scientific mystery is why the air does not hold more CO2 than it does. Half a billion years ago, there was almost 20 times today's CO2 concentration.
Most farmers would prefer to grow crops under much-higher concentrations of CO2 than today's 385 parts per million-less than 1/25 of 1 percent of the atmosphere. To feed the world, low CO2 concentration is not such a great idea. High concentrations are better, and they cause no harm. Experiments have shown that even delicate plants such as orchids thrive at CO2 concentrations of 10,000 ppm.
That is why U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia has declared that if CO2 is to be labeled an "air pollutant", then so must Frisbees and flatulence.
What about the danger of overheating the Earth by CO2? Al Gore is spending $300 million telling us "global warming" will be a catastrophe. Yet a survey of 539 scientific papers containing the words "global climate change" and published between January 2004 and February 2007 found not a single one that provided any evidence that "global warming" would be catastrophic. It does not matter how many scientists or politicians say that more CO2 will cause a catastrophe. To true scientists, what matters is whether any real-world data support the idea.
If CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas, we would have seen a great warming trend in Indonesian temperature history. We haven't. Recent temperatures, according to the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, have been scarcely warmer than they were 70 to 100 years ago. Instead of a strong warming trend, the Indonesian data are dominated by year-to-year changes and natural oscillations every 50 to 100 years.
It is remarkable to find documents on the Internet, circulated by WWF-Indonesia, trying to scare the unsuspecting public by saying the temperature in Indonesia has "increased by 0.3� C" over the twentieth century and that one can expect additional warming of 0.1 to 0.3� C per decade for the next 20 to 100 years.
In a humid, equatorial nation such as Indonesia, with annual temperatures between 23� and 32� C, there is little chance of seeing those predicted warming trends, or any of the predicted changes in rainfall.
Professor Mezak Ratag of the Indonesia National Agency for Meteorology & Geophysics says,
"The output from different models is often different and sometimes contradictory. For example, [a UK climate model] predicts increases in temperature and decreases in precipitation for Indonesia, while [a German model] predicts an increase in both temperature and precipitation."
When climate models say that both increased and decreased rainfall are possible, they are not actually making any predictions.Worse, climate scientists from Stanford University and the University of Washington in the United States recently admitted that the islands of Java and Bali are not even represented as land in many global-circulation models used by the IPCC.
The 100-year mean temperatures over the period 1901-2000 for March-April-May, June-July-August, September-October-November, and December-January-February are 26.2, 25.6, 26.1, and 25.9� C, respectively. This confirms the clear dependence of the basic climatology of Indonesia on the arrival and relative intensity of the sun overhead. More sun means warmer weather, and vice versa. It is as simple as that.
More sun also means more rain, except that during the December-January-February season there is an additional large contribution from the northwest monsoon and the southward migration of the inter-tropical rainbelt.
Look to matahari (the sun in Bahasa Indonesia) rather than CO2 as the key player in Indonesia's climate.
Cutting CO2 emissions by sharply curtailing the use of gasoline and other fossil fuels will make no difference to the weather. It will merely lead the foolish to feel good about "saving the planet". Even if the planet needed saving, all proposed mitigation measures would be futile. It would be cheaper and less irresponsible to adapt to warmer weather as-or rather if-necessary.
We have already seen food prices double and triple worldwide because the "green" movement told us biofuels would "save the planet". Science, however, demonstrates that biofuels have a bigger carbon footprint than does gasoline.
Foolish mitigation measures that owe everything to political fashion and nothing to scientific rigor are already harming the world's poor. It is time to stop the hysteria about CO2 before anyone else gets hurt-or even killed.
Willie Soon is a geoscientist at the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. He will address the International Symposium on Climate and Weather of the Sun-Earth System, hosted by Indonesia's National Agency for Meteorology & Geophysics in Jakarta November 24-26.
Christopher Monckton is chief policy adviser to the Science and Public Policy Institute in the USA. (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org).
This article has been republished from Indonesia Matters with permission from Dr Soon.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/11/indonesia%e2%80%99s-climate-...
whether CO2 causes global warming is left to debate,

You can debate it all you want. It's irrelevant. The fact is there is no scientific evidence that CO2 has any effect at all on atmopheric temperatures.

one can't deny huge mass of ice has been melted in north pole yearly

Yes, this has been happening for tens of thousands if not millions of years. Don't fall for the propaganda.

and bears are starving - where I live,

Survival in the wild is harsh. It always has been. Wake up to reality.

it rains less, water recesses, wild fires are more frequent, winter is warmer.

Anecdotal nonsense.

On Nov 30, 2:34�am, Q wrote:

GeekBoy wrote:
[snip]
whether CO2 causes global warming is left to debate, one can't deny huge mass of ice has been melted in north pole yearly and bears are starving - where I live, it rains less, water recesses, wild fires are more frequent, winter is warmer.
Drop the word "whether". CO2 causes global warming, any theory that attempt to deny this is unscientific.

Go to hell you propagandizing nitwit.

Furthermore you should not confuse the "weather" and the "climate".

Absurd. Weather and climate are the exact same phenomena at different timescales. Increasing timescale does not increase accuracy, you nitiwt.

Ignore all "weather" variations on an annual basis, and then you have to interpret multi-year trends which typically last 10 to 30 years.

Worthless speculation.

If you see a trend on such time scales then we begin the talk about the possibility of climate change.
There is consensus that the climate has changed since 1960.

It's a phoney consensus. It is based on getting government grants. There is no scientific basis for such a consensus. There is only a political basis to pretend the science makes sense so that the grant money keeps flowing. It's just a scam.

The oscillations you get to see between then and now are due to El Nino's and Pacific decadal oscillations.

Absurd speculation.

Currently we are in the La Nina phase that comes after the El Nino of 2006/7

Shut up retard. You're clueless.

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/ts.gif
Q

In the area I live in, which I moved into in 2006, is getting cooler. In 2006, I stopped using the air conditioner in November. In 2007 it was October, and now in 2008, September.


"Sushi Fish" wrote in message On Nov 26, 4:05 pm, "bnzoo" wrote:

Look to matahari (the sun in Bahasa Indonesia) rather than CO2 as the key player in Indonesia's climate.
November 25
QUOTE: a survey of 539 scientific papers containing the words "global climate change" and published between January 2004 and February 2007 found not a single one that provided any evidence that "global warming" would be catastrophic. It does not matter how many scientists or politicians say that more CO2 will cause a catastrophe. To true scientists, what matters is whether any real-world data support the idea.
QUOTE: Professor Mezak Ratag of the Indonesia National Agency for Meteorology & Geophysics says,
"The output from different models is often different and sometimes contradictory. For example, [a UK climate model] predicts increases in temperature and decreases in precipitation for Indonesia, while [a German model] predicts an increase in both temperature and precipitation."
CO2 is not an air pollutant. It is plant food. All life on Earth depends on it. It is natural. It forms the bubbles in bread, champagne, and Coca-Cola. You breathe it out, and plants breathe it in.
The Earth contains a lot of CO2, but the atmosphere contains so little that the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) rightly calls CO2 a "trace gas". A scientific mystery is why the air does not hold more CO2 than it does. Half a billion years ago, there was almost 20 times today's CO2 concentration.
Most farmers would prefer to grow crops under much-higher concentrations of CO2 than today's 385 parts per million-less than 1/25 of 1 percent of the atmosphere. To feed the world, low CO2 concentration is not such a great idea. High concentrations are better, and they cause no harm. Experiments have shown that even delicate plants such as orchids thrive at CO2 concentrations of 10,000 ppm.
That is why U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia has declared that if CO2 is to be labeled an "air pollutant", then so must Frisbees and flatulence.
What about the danger of overheating the Earth by CO2? Al Gore is spending $300 million telling us "global warming" will be a catastrophe. Yet a survey of 539 scientific papers containing the words "global climate change" and published between January 2004 and February 2007 found not a single one that provided any evidence that "global warming" would be catastrophic. It does not matter how many scientists or politicians say that more CO2 will cause a catastrophe. To true scientists, what matters is whether any real-world data support the idea.
If CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas, we would have seen a great warming trend in Indonesian temperature history. We haven't. Recent temperatures, according to the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, have been scarcely warmer than they were 70 to 100 years ago. Instead of a strong warming trend, the Indonesian data are dominated by year-to-year changes and natural oscillations every 50 to 100 years.
It is remarkable to find documents on the Internet, circulated by WWF-Indonesia, trying to scare the unsuspecting public by saying the temperature in Indonesia has "increased by 0.3� C" over the twentieth century and that one can expect additional warming of 0.1 to 0.3� C per decade for the next 20 to 100 years.
In a humid, equatorial nation such as Indonesia, with annual temperatures between 23� and 32� C, there is little chance of seeing those predicted warming trends, or any of the predicted changes in rainfall.
Professor Mezak Ratag of the Indonesia National Agency for Meteorology & Geophysics says,
"The output from different models is often different and sometimes contradictory. For example, [a UK climate model] predicts increases in temperature and decreases in precipitation for Indonesia, while [a German model] predicts an increase in both temperature and precipitation."
When climate models say that both increased and decreased rainfall are possible, they are not actually making any predictions.Worse, climate scientists from Stanford University and the University of Washington in the United States recently admitted that the islands of Java and Bali are not even represented as land in many global-circulation models used by the IPCC.
The 100-year mean temperatures over the period 1901-2000 for March-April-May, June-July-August, September-October-November, and December-January-February are 26.2, 25.6, 26.1, and 25.9� C, respectively. This confirms the clear dependence of the basic climatology of Indonesia on the arrival and relative intensity of the sun overhead. More sun means warmer weather, and vice versa. It is as simple as that.
More sun also means more rain, except that during the December-January-February season there is an additional large contribution from the northwest monsoon and the southward migration of the inter-tropical rainbelt.
Look to matahari (the sun in Bahasa Indonesia) rather than CO2 as the key player in Indonesia's climate.
Cutting CO2 emissions by sharply curtailing the use of gasoline and other fossil fuels will make no difference to the weather. It will merely lead the foolish to feel good about "saving the planet". Even if the planet needed saving, all proposed mitigation measures would be futile. It would be cheaper and less irresponsible to adapt to warmer weather as-or rather if-necessary.
We have already seen food prices double and triple worldwide because the "green" movement told us biofuels would "save the planet". Science, however, demonstrates that biofuels have a bigger carbon footprint than does gasoline.
Foolish mitigation measures that owe everything to political fashion and nothing to scientific rigor are already harming the world's poor. It is time to stop the hysteria about CO2 before anyone else gets hurt-or even killed.
Willie Soon is a geoscientist at the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. He will address the International Symposium on Climate and Weather of the Sun-Earth System, hosted by Indonesia's National Agency for Meteorology & Geophysics in Jakarta November 24-26.
Christopher Monckton is chief policy adviser to the Science and Public Policy Institute in the USA. (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org).
This article has been republished from Indonesia Matters with permission from Dr Soon.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/11/indonesia%e2%80%99s-climate-...

whether CO2 causes global warming is left to debate, one can't deny huge mass of ice has been melted in north pole yearly and bears are starving - where I live, it rains less, water recesses, wild fires are more frequent, winter is warmer.

GeekBoy wrote:
[snip]

whether CO2 causes global warming is left to debate, one can't deny huge mass of ice has been melted in north pole yearly and bears are starving - where I live, it rains less, water recesses, wild fires are more frequent, winter is warmer.

Drop the word "whether". CO2 causes global warming, any theory that attempt to deny this is unscientific.
Furthermore you should not confuse the "weather" and the "climate".
Ignore all "weather" variations on an annual basis, and then you have to interpret multi-year trends which typically last 10 to 30 years.
If you see a trend on such time scales then we begin the talk about the possibility of climate change.
There is consensus that the climate has changed since 1960. The oscillations you get to see between then and now are due to El Nino's and Pacific decadal oscillations.
Currently we are in the La Nina phase that comes after the El Nino of 2006/7
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/ts.gif
Q

"GeekBoy" wrote:

In the area I live in, which I moved into in 2006, is getting cooler. In 2006, I stopped using the air conditioner in November. In 2007 it was October, and now in 2008, September.

Isn't Global Warming great?

Q wrote:

GeekBoy wrote:
[snip]
whether CO2 causes global warming is left to debate, one can't deny huge mass of ice has been melted in north pole yearly and bears are starving - where I live, it rains less, water recesses, wild fires are more frequent, winter is warmer.
Drop the word "whether". CO2 causes global warming, any theory that attempt to deny this is unscientific.

And you are an xpert?
Since you are an authority, maybe you can explain how CO2 at a temperature of -55 C can absorb radiation emitted at greater than 20 C.
Never mind, just say CO2 is magical, it can do anything.

Claudius Denk wrote:

On Nov 30, 2:34 am, Q wrote: GeekBoy wrote:
[snip]
whether CO2 causes global warming is left to debate, one can't deny huge mass of ice has been melted in north pole yearly and bears are starving - where I live, it rains less, water recesses, wild fires are more frequent, winter is warmer. Drop the word "whether". CO2 causes global warming, any theory that attempt to deny this is unscientific.
Go to hell you propagandizing nitwit.
Furthermore you should not confuse the "weather" and the "climate".
Absurd. Weather and climate are the exact same phenomena at different timescales. Increasing timescale does not increase accuracy, you nitiwt.
Ignore all "weather" variations on an annual basis, and then you have to interpret multi-year trends which typically last 10 to 30 years.
Worthless speculation.
If you see a trend on such time scales then we begin the talk about the possibility of climate change.
There is consensus that the climate has changed since 1960.
It's a phoney consensus. It is based on getting government grants. There is no scientific basis for such a consensus. There is only a political basis to pretend the science makes sense so that the grant money keeps flowing. It's just a scam.
The oscillations you get to see between then and now are due to El Nino's and Pacific decadal oscillations.
Absurd speculation.
Currently we are in the La Nina phase that comes after the El Nino of 2006/7
Shut up retard. You're clueless.
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/ts.gif
Q

Claudius Denk is a aggressive climate change denier and clearly a liar!!!

Whata Fool wrote:

Q wrote:
GeekBoy wrote:
[snip]
whether CO2 causes global warming is left to debate, one can't deny huge mass of ice has been melted in north pole yearly and bears are starving - where I live, it rains less, water recesses, wild fires are more frequent, winter is warmer. Drop the word "whether". CO2 causes global warming, any theory that attempt to deny this is unscientific.

And you are an xpert?
Since you are an authority, maybe you can explain how CO2 at a temperature of -55 C can absorb radiation emitted at greater than 20 C.
Never mind, just say CO2 is magical, it can do anything.

I recommend for further reading:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
Q

Q wrote:

GeekBoy wrote: whether CO2 causes global warming is left to debate, one can't deny huge mass of ice has been melted in north pole yearly and bears are starving - where I live, it rains less, water recesses, wild fires are more frequent, winter is warmer.
Drop the word "whether". CO2 causes global warming, any theory that attempt to deny this is unscientific.

What a load of crap.
Another gullible idiot !
Graham