All Solar, Et Al, In 12 Years?

[Terrel L. Shields]

Not necessarily--it's all in how they are raised/trained.

Dog breeds are characterized by certain physical and behavioral traits. Each breed was developed to perform a specific job, whether that job is hunting rabbits, retrieving downed birds, herding livestock or sitting on people’s laps. When developing a breed, breeders selected only those dogs that performed their job best to produce the next generation. (ASPCA_ position statement on Pit Bulls)
​

Aggression can be bred into an animal. It is the reverse of domestication. Therefore, it is not always "how they are raised"... or treated. A strong willed dog seeking to be the Alpha animal in the pack will challenge even its owner if the owner is not incredibly attuned to animal behavior. We raised foxhounds which are generally friendly dogs but out of a given litter one or two may be aggressors. Every dog is different.

 

[Elliott]

Agree with Terrel.

All things equal, then why are there a set of dogs that are responsible for a higher level of bites.....includes Pits, Bulls, and G Shepherds, and I think Pomerranians?

 

[Carnivore]

http://www.naturalnews.com/033370_polar_bars_scientific_fraud.html

 

[Randolph Kinney]

http://www.naturalnews.com/033370_polar_bars_scientific_fraud.html

But a new government investigation into the supposed science surrounding this now-infamous urban legend has revealed that it was likely nothing more than a pseudo scientific hoax propagated by faulty math and perfunctory observations.

According to investigators, Monnett's calculations concerning polar bears' rate of survival, however, are flawed because he not only failed to verify that the four dead polar bears he witnessed were the same ones that he saw a week prior, but he also allegedly used faulty percentages in the process. As a result, polar bears ended up getting listed as a protected species under the Endangered Species Act, even though they are likely not endangered, and are not dying at the rates to which Monnett had implied.

Worse, the observed polar bear carcasses were never actually recovered and properly examined to determine their cause of death. So paper statements implying that ice caps were to blame are grounded in baseless assumption, not scientific observation.

Just junk science past off as peer reviewed fact.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Research ship trapped in Antarctic ice because of weather, not climate change


The predicament and subsequent rescue of 52 passengers – both tourists and scientists – on the Russian ship Academik Shokalskiy has gripped media around the world. The smooth rescue was impressive and a great relief, although the vessel itself and its crew are still stuck – and now one of the icebreakers sent to help in the rescue, the Chinese ship Xue Long, is itself stuck in the ice.

Some commentators have remarked on what they describe as the 'irony' of researchers studying the impact of a warming planet themselves being impeded by heavy ice. With some even suggesting that the situation is itself evidence that global warming is exaggerated.

Regionally, climate change can vary markedly across the Earth so to detect human influences on the climate system climate scientists must consider the Earth as a whole.

In the area where the Akademik Shokalskiy is trapped there has been an increase in sea ice extent for the year as a whole since the late 1970s.

We have relatively short records of the extent of sea ice across the polar regions and can only accurately examine trends since sophisticated microwave instruments became available on the polar orbiting satellites in the late 1970s. However, the records do show that since that time the two polar regions have experienced very different trends in ice extent. Arctic sea ice has been declining in extent in every month of the year, but with the maximum loss of almost 14% per decade being found in September. In contrast, sea ice extent around the Antarctic has increased in every month of the year with the largest increase being almost 4% per decade in March. The contrasting nature of the changes was highlighted in September 2012 when both polar regions experienced new record extents of sea ice for the satellite era.

However, for the Arctic it is estimated that anthropogenic forcing through the emission of greenhouse gases has contributed 50–60% of the long-term decline of Arctic sea ice. The remaining contribution is believed to come from natural variability. But in the Antarctic the reason for the increase in ice is less clear.

It's currently not clear why there has been an increase in the number and intensity of storms over the southern South Pacific since the late 1970s. However, this area is where the ozone hole has a large impact on the atmospheric circulation and where signals of the El Nino-Southern Oscillation, one of the largest climatic cycles on Earth, are felt most in the Antarctic. It's also where the greatest natural variability in atmospheric circulation is observed in the southern hemisphere, which has been attributed to the fact that the large Antarctic ice sheet is displaced slightly from the pole.

Sea ice extent has a large natural variability in both polar regions because of the amplifying effect of interactions between the atmosphere, ocean and sea ice. In the Arctic there is now increasing evidence that rising greenhouse gas emissions are playing a significant part in the loss of sea ice. However, in the Antarctic the increase in annual mean sea ice extent is only just over 1% per decade, making it impossible at present to separate natural variability from any human influence.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ce-trapped-academik-shokalskiy-climate-change

Pretty clear to me. More ice, less global warming. Less ice, more global warming. So it isn't really global, is it? The northern hemisphere is warming while the southern hemisphere is cooling.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Hole In the Earth's Ozone Layer Is Finally Closing Up, NASA Says

A hole in our atmosphere more than twice the size of the United States is finally beginning to close up, and might even be completely gone by the end of the century, according to a new study by NASA scientists.

The report was published in the journal Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. In short, it tells us that the measures taken to heal our ozone layer are, and will be, successful.

http://www.weather.com/science/environment/news/ozone-hole-closing-nasa

 

[Elliott]

As Obama says, "Its indisputable science."

 

[Randolph Kinney]

As Obama says, "Its indisputable science."

Climate change: Seven indisputable facts

Below are seven irrefutable facts about climate change that are ignored because they do not fit into the alarmists’ scare tactics. These facts are not disputed.

1. For the past 18 years, weather satellites have not measured a global increase in temperatures although carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has increased over that same period. Weather satellites are the most advanced instruments for measuring global temperatures. The fact that these satellites have not detected a measurable temperature increase despite an increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere calls into question the correlation climate change alarmists preach between carbon emissions and temperature.

2. According to the EPA’s own data, U.S. carbon emissions have decreased nine percent since 2005. These carbon reductions have occurred as a result of technological advancements and free market forces, which will continue. This raises the question of whether burdensome regulations are necessary.

3. The natural cycle of global temperatures has resulted in both higher and lower temperatures over the past 1,000 years than exist today. These temperature fluctuations occurred before significant fossil energy use. So temperatures the Earth is experiencing now have been seen before.

4. If implemented, the Obama administration’s Climate Action Plan would reduce global temperatures by only 0.01, or one one-hundredth of a degree Celsius. President Obama’s former deputy secretary for Fossil Energy at the Department of Energy, Charles McConnell, said that the EPA’s carbon rules will have only a minor impact on global climate change. Yet regulations will cost billions of dollars and jeopardize thousands of jobs.

5. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has reported that there is little or no connection between extreme weather and climate change. According to a 2012 report, the IPCC stated that there is “high agreement” that long-term trends in weather disasters “have not been attributed to … climate change.” Climate change alarmists point toward hurricanes, tornadoes and other global weather disasters as a proof that man-made carbon emissions are hurting our planet. However, as the IPCC report stated, the opposite is true. There is scientific agreement that weather disasters are not caused by climate change, despite President Obama repeatedly trying to connect the two.

6. Population growth, especially in the developing world, will account for even more global carbon emissions. Carbon emissions from developing countries are projected to increase by over 125 percent by 2040. And world population is expected to surge by over 2 billion people by 2050, an increase of more than 30 percent. Yet few climate scientists acknowledge the potential impact of population growth on carbon emissions.

7. Carbon dioxide accounts for a very small part of the Earth’s overall atmosphere and those levels have fluctuated throughout the Earth’s history. Carbon dioxide currently accounts for only .038 percent of our planet’s atmosphere. And human-made carbon dioxide only makes up about 3 percent of that. Put another way, if all the gases in the atmosphere were represented by the length of a football field, only the last 1/10 of an inch would be carbon emissions caused by humans. It’s hard to believe that such a small amount would supposedly have such huge consequences.

The EPA and other government agencies too often fail to present all the facts. Their agenda comes first, accuracy comes second. Climate change has many explanations — and unanswered questions. The American people need good science, not science fiction promoted by alarmists.

http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/252989-climate-change-seven-indisputable-facts

“Being in a minority, even in a minority of one, did not make you mad. There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.”
― George Orwell, 1984

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Why aren't climate scientists winning the argument on climate policy?

The main reason for the disconnect between the science and the public is the gross tactical incompetence of the climate-science community, as it's called, and its political champions.

Consider this latest installment of the IPCC's survey of the science. It's more carefully hedged than its predecessors -- and rightly so. There are fewer specific claims about the future that the science can't fully support or that might turn out to be simply wrong. The emphasis is more on prudent actions to avoid risks, and less on precise predictions about what's coming if those actions aren't taken. That's the approach that the unsettled science of climate change dictates.

Yet look at how U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, for instance,responded to the new publication: "Read this report and you can't deny the reality. Unless we act dramatically and quickly, science tells us our climate and our way of life are literally in jeopardy. Denial of the science is malpractice. ... The costs of inaction are catastrophic."

The new report doesn't say any of that. The science doesn't predict a catastrophe that would threaten the American way of life. The most cost-effective responses to the risks of climate change are measured and gradual, not dramatic and quick. And denying the wisdom of Kerry's call for action isn't "denial of the science" -- because the science by itself can't say how much to spend on mitigation of, or adaptation to, climate change. That's a political question.

But this cause isn't advanced by exaggerating what is known in order to scare people into action, nor by denouncing everybody who disagrees with such proposals as evil or idiotic.

The scientists themselves -- some of them, at least -- are partly to blame. They chose to become political advocates, no doubt out of a sincere belief that policies needed to change a lot and at once. But scientist-advocates can't expect to be seen as objective or disinterested. Once they're suspected of spinning the science or opining on questions outside their area of expertise, as political advocacy is bound to require, they lose authority. And it doesn't help when scientists who express such reservations are cast out of the mainstream. You expect "you're either with us or against us" from politicians, but not from scientists.

The rules for politicians are different. They're expected to spin: It goes with the job. Still, is it too much to ask that they spin to good effect? You don't persuade the uncommitted middle of the electorate to support more deliberate action on climate change by telling them that they're too stupid to be trusted with uncertainty and that if they refuse to go along with fast dramatic action (details to follow) they're science deniers and willful destroyers of the planet.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articl...ics-fail-climate-scientists-and-everyone-else

Since the global warming science can't make accurate predictions about the future based upon CO2 levels, the only truth of global warming science seems to be a weather forecast that has a probability greater than 50% of being wrong.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Climate prediction of ice free arctic seems to be in doubt

Listening to the latest “climate doom” you’d think that the Arctic must just about be squeaky clean, not a drink-sized ice cube in sight anymore. Well, I’ve some news that must be disconcerting to the warmists: The sea-ice extent is actually quite stable, perhaps even growing and the polar bears are just fine as well.

Sea-Ice in the Arctic
The sea-ice in the Arctic waxes and wanes in a regular fashion, sort of like the phases of the Moon.

At the height of the seasonal minimum (around mid-September) the Arctic sea-ice extent is in the order of 4-5 million square kilometers (SKM). That’s quite different from the maximum extent in the Arctic winter that is typically in the 14-15 million SKM range; in other words, its common seasonal range is approximately threefold or more.

With such a large seasonal variation, some doom-and-gloom artists have been quite vociferous in predicting an “ice-free Arctic” (in summer) for years now. For example, Prof. S. Rahmstorf at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), one of Germany’s most outspoken climate modellers, repeatedly warned the world of that coming (or already triggered) “tipping point” calamity, in 2008 and again in 2012. Not to be left out (from the “warming Arctic” spiel), many others were keen on embracing that scenario in recent years as well, like the New Scientist. So, what are the facts?

Air Temperatures in the Arctic
For example, the number of days with air temperature above freezing (0 C) at latitude 80 N and higher have been recorded for 55 years now. These data are readily available from the Danish Meteorological Institute(DMI). On the basis of such observations, they have also calculated a 50-year mean of temperatures above freezing. It has not changed in that time and you can follow it daily as well as all daily records over the past, year by year. What’s important in these data is the number of days above freezing each year. Except for 2013, where that number was one half of the long-term mean of 90 days, it hardly changed from year to year.

These data not only show a very stable climate up north, they also indicate that the claims of a “thinning” ice-cover must be false. You cannot possibly have the ice thinning and the air warming and the ice-cover being unaffected decade after decade. If the ice were getting thinner, it would melt earlier, the number of days above freezing would increase and the re-freezing would happen later in the season; none of which is happening. Now let’s look at the ice cover itself.

Minimum Sea-Ice Extent
What everyone is watching with beady eyes is the seasonal MINIMUM sea-ice extent. That occurs around mid-September and, obviously, varies more strongly as it’s influenced by a variety of natural and man-made effects than at the time of maximum extent when there isn’t much activity. For example, the brief Arctic summer is the time when submarines tend to surface near the Pole, when research vessels try to explore the Arctic, when commercial vessels may attempt to cross the Northwest or Northeast Passages, when companies are exploring for natural resources, when buccaneers try to reach the North Pole by foot, when cruise ships go on Arctic voyages, when you can go hot-air-ballooning there, and more.

Much of that brief seasonal activity still requires the accompaniment (and, frequently, rescue) by ice-breakers from the Arctic riparian countries. For example, Russia alone has about 50 of such vessels, including nuclear-powered Class-4 or higher ice-breakers. The U.S. Coast Guard Icebreaker Healy made it to the North Pole just earlier this month, as shown in the picture below from Sep. 7, 2015.

Photo Credit: U.S. Coast Guard, photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class Cory J. Mendenhall

Although that photo shows the North Pole covered with solid ice, there have been other times when open water was seen right there. For example, the USS Skate surfaced there in 1958 and had repeatedly observed open water in the high Arctic.

Maximum Sea-Ice Extent
To begin with, hardly a soul ever mentions the MAXIMUM seasonal sea-ice extent in the Arctic. In truth, it hasn’t changed much for many decades. The reasons are easy to understand. With most of the year (see Air Temperatures, above) being well below freezing, the annual ice build-up is affected more by wind and currents than anything else. Therefore, it reaches a maximum at around mid-March that barely varies between years. In that context, it should also be noted that, by most accounts, the “Arctic” sea-ice count extends south to latitude 45 N, or even further towards the equator. Still, the maximum ice extent barely changes, so, no need to mention it further.

Also, there are few visitors to the high Arctic in winter. Not only is it dark for many days then, the temperatures aren’t exactly suited for frolicking either. At MINUS 40 C, even the (male) polar bears that are not hibernating are beginning to shiver. In my humble opinion, it’s a pity that the many famous climate modellers from PIK and other institutions don’t want to visit then. The local government may even provide free accommodation then (with a minimum stay of four-weeks) in tents or igloos, visitors’ choice. What could be more relaxing than a few weeks in an igloo when a blizzard rages on the outside? If need be, they can bring along a portable windmill to charge their i-thing or laptop.

Overall Arctic Sea-Ice Extent
As you can imagine, any daily measurement of that is only possible with sophisticated instrumentation and associated software from a long distance away. Satellite recognisance is what is deployed for that purpose.

There are the widely used daily satellite surveys of Arctic sea-ice published by the Nansen Environmental & Remote Sensing Center at Bergen, Norway. These satellite observations have changed repeatedly in terms of instrumentation and computer algorithms used. Therefore earlier measurement series (i.e. before 2000 or so) are not fully compatible with later ones.

Another widely used series of measurements is that of sea-ice in the northern hemisphere by the National Snow & Ice Data Center at Boulder, CO. In addition, the DMI also provides daily graphs on the Arctic sea-ice extent.

As the graphs produced by each institute have their own spatial resolution and/or definition of what constitutes “sea-ice” versus water, they give different absolute numbers; by and large though the graphs show similar trends.

There is one ice measurement that has yet to see widespread use, namely the annual sea-ice average as computed from all daily data (from one source). Such an analysis is available from the Science Matters website. It has just published that for the last ten years. That graph actually shows a slightly increasing trend of the Arctic ice extent in that period, as shown below.

Arctic sea-ice extent as annual average from daily observations, 2006-2015 (provisional for 2015). Credit: Science Matters.

In short, no matter what measurement you use to look at ice in the North, it shows no sign of going the way of the dodo bird, rather the opposite. The doomsayers’ claims about the ice disappearing are false—and you’ll still need your winter woollies!

Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser -- Bio and Archives

http://canadafreepress.com/article/75701

Who knew the arctic sea-ice has not really changed and the climate scientists forecast of an ice-free arctic has been wrong?